[c-nsp] 4900M vs. 4503 for core

[Charles Klement]

I don't believe that twin-gig converters are supported in the onboard 10G
interfaces of the 4900M.  I think they are only supported on the
oversubscribed 8 port 10G card.  Also, watch for licensing costs.  The adder
to get up to enterprise licensing is very expensive.  Look in the feature
navigator to see if all the IOS features you want are in the base license.

Have you looked into using the 3560E platform for your small core?  I
believe that there is a 12port 10G version which supports the twingig
converters and (gasp!) actually has 2 power supplies.

charles

On Wed, Jan 27, 2010 at 10:42 AM, Jason Gurtz <jasongurtz at npumail.com>wrote:

> We are doing a long overdue redesign of our network as part of a voip
> implementation, hopefully ending up with a collapsed core w/routed access
> layer.  A consultant has proposed the 4507 as access switches and a pair
> of 3750-E switches as the core.  The 3750-E seems a strange choice to me
> for a few reasons and I'm thinking a pair of 4900M or 4503 switches would
> be a better fit looking forward.
>
> We are a smaller shop (7 access switches including the datacenter) with
> 100Mb desktops and a mix of 100/1000 for servers.  Switch-to-switch trunks
> are 1Gb.  The number of access switches is very unlikely to change and we
> could, in the future move to a 10Gb.  The 4900M solution would save a
> non-trivial amount over 4503 with Sup6.
>
> Is there anything glaringly wrong with choosing the 4900M using twin-gig
> based connections to the access layer over the 4503 Sup6 and 46xx line
> cards in our situation?
>
> ~Jason
> _______________________________________________
> cisco-nsp mailing list  cisco-nsp at puck.nether.net
> https://puck.nether.net/mailman/listinfo/cisco-nsp
> archive at http://puck.nether.net/pipermail/cisco-nsp/
>