[116856] in North American Network Operators' Group
Re: Alternatives to storm-control on Cat 6509.
daemon@ATHENA.MIT.EDU (Nick Hilliard)
Sat Aug 22 05:14:54 2009
X-Envelope-To: nanog@nanog.org
Date: Sat, 22 Aug 2009 10:13:47 +0100
From: Nick Hilliard <nick@foobar.org>
To: Andrew Parnell <andrew@parnell.ca>
In-Reply-To: <2d54a02d0908212226n43a8d875sa19cd0a754d1c071@mail.gmail.com>
Cc: "nanog@nanog.org" <nanog@nanog.org>,
Peter George <Peter.George@lumison.net>
Errors-To: nanog-bounces+nanog.discuss=bloom-picayune.mit.edu@nanog.org
On 22/08/2009 06:26, Andrew Parnell wrote:
> The 67xx series cards aren't supported by the sup32, though. Would 65xx
> line cards do the trick?
unfortunately not:
> http://www.cisco.com/en/US/docs/switches/lan/catalyst6500/ios/12.2SXF/native/configuration/guide/storm.html
> • The following LAN switching modules do not support traffic storm control:
> – WS-X6148A-GE-45AF
> – WS-X6148A-GE-TX
> – WS-X6148-GE-45AF
> – WS-X6148-GE-TX
> – WS-X6148V-GE-TX
> – WS-X6548-GE-45AF
> – WS-X6548-GE-TX
> – WS-X6548V-GE-TX
Hmmm, expensive proposition to upgrade then - even though sup720 + ws-x67xx
cards make a nice l2 platform for gig ethernet.
Nick
