Network pics thread

nerdalertdk said:
that's not a problem, just go with two x R415 ;)

I would love to run a cluster at home, but that means i net a san/nas and another server, this well but my watt usage over 300watt and with the power price in Danmark it's just to expensive....
Click to expand...

If I had two Dell R210 ||'s it would be the same as this R415, as it has two 500watt psu's

Oh well next year maybe..
 
@ToX are you putting Cisco 800 series at each of your stores? If so, I think I may know who you work for. If you're in the optical business, I think my company may have provided your data connections.
 
calvinj said:
No, but you want to piss around every 120 days redoing everything?
Click to expand...

Whata talkin bout Willis? :D

150 Device limit, where is this 120 day demo limit you speak of?

Speaking of which, lets add to this relevant topic here with my new addition:

20120401085023308.jpg
 
again.. demo licenses do NOT expire. You are limited on the amount of things you can attach to the cluster.

Im not aware of any cisco product that has a time limit. I think the only time limit is support coverage (what you pay for) and end of life of the product.
 
jjandrob said:
again.. demo licenses do NOT expire. You are limited on the amount of things you can attach to the cluster.

Im not aware of any cisco product that has a time limit. I think the only time limit is support coverage (what you pay for) and end of life of the product.
Click to expand...

Many (most?) Cisco products have a demo expiration. ACS, LMS, ISE, etc, etc. The voice products are some of the only ones I know of that don't.
 
Well, not necessarily.. I know that CME and CUE both have 60 day evaluation licenses... but as far as CUCM, it does not.
 
CiscoInside said:
Well, not necessarily.. I know that CME and CUE both have 60 day evaluation licenses... but as far as CUCM, it does not.
Click to expand...

I wasn't lumping ALL of the voice products together, FYI. I think you may have been reading too much into my post.

Also, CME on what? CME is a feature built into IOS. Are you talking about licensing grace periods on the G2s? Everything before that ran forever as it was just part of IOS.
 
Jay_oasis said:
I am about halfway through the build out of one of our DR remote offices



IMG00020-20120331-1206.jpg
Click to expand...

Jay,

How come in this photo, you have (or what looks like ) the yellow cable coming from the firewall to your switch to port 47? And not the uplink port ?

Isn't it better to use the uplink port because it can handle more bandwidth ?

Dash
 
dashpuppy said:
Jay,

How come in this photo, you have (or what looks like ) the yellow cable coming from the firewall to your switch to port 47? And not the uplink port ?

Isn't it better to use the uplink port because it can handle more bandwidth ?

Dash
Click to expand...

Depending on the switch, they are probably both GbE. One is just fiber and one copper. No need to pay for an SFP and fiber cable for that, unless you need the port space.
 
ah. duh. forgot about UCCX. lol. I do not get into routers much. that's for the network team. Im more CUCM and unity.
 
MikeTrike said:
Depending on the switch, they are probably both GbE. One is just fiber and one copper. No need to pay for an SFP and fiber cable for that, unless you need the port space.
Click to expand...

one is copper one is fiber, but that doesn't answer my question.

ISNT it better to use the "UPLINK" port for your unplink to the switch, as it has a separate chip to process "IN" traffic through a interface that is going to handle more traffic than one that is not a "uplink"
 
There are no copper uplink ports on that switch plus the standard gig switch port can handle way way way more than that 1941 can handle. We don't have any heavy L3 at all. The uplinks on that switch are SFP 10Gb

The two copper ports you can see on that pic are management and console

2960s.jpg


The only time you need the cache of an uplink port is if you are uplinking to another switch, if you have heavy L3 you need a L3 switch.
 
Jay_oasis said:
There are no copper uplink ports on that switch plus the standard gig switch port can handle way way way more than that 1941 can handle. We don't have any heavy L3 at all. The uplinks on that switch are SFP 10Gb

The two copper ports you can see on that pic are management and console

2960s.jpg


The only time you need the cache of an uplink port is if you are uplinking to another switch, if you have heavy L3 you need a L3 switch.
Click to expand...

ahhh, ok.

"BUT" if you have a switch say with "uplink" ports, you should use them correct ?

here is a switch i have for a good example, it's just a 10/100 with 2 1gig uplinks. But lets remove the speeds of the uplink & ports. IT's better to use the uplink ports correct ?

DSCN0330.JPG
 
depends what to.

to another switch, yes. to a router, probably not worth it really.
 
Jay_oasis said:
depends what to.

to another switch, yes. to a router, probably not worth it really.
Click to expand...

well, with the switch i posted you sure would use the "uplink" ports ya wouldn't use one of the 10/100 ports for a connection to the router...
 
dashpuppy said:
well, with the switch i posted you sure would use the "uplink" ports ya wouldn't use one of the 10/100 ports for a connection to the router...
Click to expand...

Is the router's interface gig (not that it could push a gig of traffic either way though)? If not, who cares which port you use. If all of your switchports are gig it won't matter then either. What do you think makes the "uplink" ports special?
 
The "uplink" ports on Cisco switches are nothing special are they? Are they just "2 more ports" or do they have any special hardware behind them that the regular switch ports don't have? Obviously they could be different than the switch ports, IE SFP ports, but the hardware and the switching, for all intents and purposes, the "uplink ports" are the same as the switch ports?
 
/usr/home said:
The "uplink" ports on Cisco switches are nothing special are they? Are they just "2 more ports" or do they have any special hardware behind them that the regular switch ports don't have? Obviously they could be different than the switch ports, IE SFP ports, but the hardware and the switching, for all intents and purposes, the "uplink ports" are the same as the switch ports?
Click to expand...

In any switch i thought they were different. ie providing more bandwidth to the rest of the ports, ie why they are separated from the rest.
 
"Uplink" ports on cisco devices don't "mean" anything. It doesn't make them any thing special. They are usually just GigE or SFP ports.
If you have a 10/100 switch with 2 uplink ports the uplinks are usually 10/100/1000. Obviously you would want to backhaul all your switch traffic to another switch/router/device via the fastest port available... which is the GigE ports.
They don't need to be called uplink. You could call them downlink, superlink, megalink, etc.. it doesn't matter.
 
I think now its nothing major, possibly a bit of a bigger cache on them to account for larger amounts of data. But I think its from the dark days where we didn't have auto sensing ports. since all ports are all the same now It's probably just to keep the old ones happy :D
 
cyr0n_k0r said:
"Uplink" ports on cisco devices don't "mean" anything. It doesn't make them any thing special. They are usually just GigE or SFP ports.
If you have a 10/100 switch with 2 uplink ports the uplinks are usually 10/100/1000. Obviously you would want to backhaul all your switch traffic to another switch/router/device via the fastest port available... which is the GigE ports.
They don't need to be called uplink. You could call them downlink, superlink, megalink, etc.. it doesn't matter.
Click to expand...

exactly, you wouldn't use the other ports, you would use the Uplink ( or what ever you want to call them )

Would go the same with the vlans, you wouldn't trunk a 1-24 port for your main traffic in and out, you would use one of the uplink ports that supports fibre / copper. Most of the time that "uplink" is faster..

I was told in a managed switch, the uplink ports are for uplink to yoru source / router etc etc.

Only trying to learn :) and understand...
 
I think the only time you would use an Uplink port over a regular switch port is if it is a different media type or faster speed.
 
Again, the "uplink" ports are not special. On most mid-range switches, you have 24-48 gig ports and an additional 2-4 gig "uplink" ports. There is nothing special about these ports at all. One could possibly argue that they're usually on a separate ASIC from the other 24-48's ASICs, but this typically won't matter and isn't always the case anyway.

If you have a 24 port gigabit switch with 2 additional gigabit "uplinks", there's no reason to use any port over another unless the two uplinks are fiber and that's what you need.

The original "plug your router into uplinks" point was dumb because most routers aren't pushing 100mb+ and are fine in a 10/100 port.
 
The uplink ports kinda help to keep things organized. It makes it very clear "NEVER TAKE THIS ONE OUT UNLESS YOU'RE SURE."

Of course some color code Ethernet by priority, but others aren't so lucky.
 
Brak710 said:
The uplink ports kinda help to keep things organized. It makes it very clear "NEVER TAKE THIS ONE OUT UNLESS YOU'RE SURE."

Of course some color code Ethernet by priority, but others aren't so lucky.
Click to expand...

I use color coded cat6's and port coding :)
 
uplink ports do have more cache I think but apart from that they are no different. a 1941 although it has gig ports can't really move traffic around at wirespeed so there is no point uplinking to it via an uplink port. There is also no point wasting a 10Gb port and buying SFP+ both ends. I will be adding another 2960s and I may uplink via the uplink ports but I could also just stack it I suppose.
 
Nice job jay. I notice a mini-USB console port...I have not done any Cisco stuff in a while, when did that change? Now one can use their camera's USB cable to program switches!
 
lol.. I noticed that and its the first time I have seen it. I am old school though and the blue cable was used so I have no idea how that works.
 
Jay_oasis said:
lol.. I noticed that and its the first time I have seen it. I am old school though and the blue cable was used so I have no idea how that works.
Click to expand...

They still put the old school console port on the back. I personally do not like the USB console, there is no UPNP so you have to go to Cisco's website and download the driver for each switch you are going to console into.
 
schnell said:
They still put the old school console port on the back. I personally do not like the USB console, there is no UPNP so you have to go to Cisco's website and download the driver for each switch you are going to console into.
Click to expand...

There's no universal driver?
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top