[29406] in North American Network Operators' Group
Re: maximum active vlans in a crisco 6509
daemon@ATHENA.MIT.EDU (Stephen Sprunk)
Wed Jun 21 14:37:28 2000
Message-ID: <013601bfdbae$71cc7380$212544ab@glock>
From: "Stephen Sprunk" <ssprunk@cisco.com>
To: <rmeyer@mhsc.com>, "'Bob Biver'" <bbiver@hotmail.com>
Cc: "North American Noise and Off-topic Gripes" <nanog@merit.edu>
Date: Wed, 21 Jun 2000 13:27:38 -0500
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain;
charset="iso-8859-1"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Errors-To: owner-nanog-outgoing@merit.edu
Sez "Roeland Meyer (E-mail)" <rmeyer@mhsc.com>
>
> > Bob Biver: Tuesday, June 20, 2000 7:28 PM
> > the docs say max 250, is this informational or a limit of
> > spanning tree?
The docs say 1000, actually.
http://www.cisco.com/univercd/cc/td/doc/product/lan/cat6000/sw_5_5/cnfg_
gd/vlans.htm#xtocid225297
I'd worry if you plan on having more than 100 STP instances on a switch;
if you're doing single-port VLANs, do yourself a favor and disable STP
for those VLANs.
> > also,
> > is anyone running more than 250 ?
There's probably someone doing it somewhere.
> If I recall correctly, that's also real close to the maximum
> number of physical connections to the chasis, with all modules
> installed. Personally, I've never run anywhere near that number.
It's possible to have 384 FE connections in a single Cat6509 today. I
do it frequently, but not with each in a different VLAN.
> I don't think it is useful to have less than 2 members in a vlan.
You forget that the routing module (aka MSFC) might be the other member,
not counting as a physical port.
> You would also be surpassing the bandwidth limitations of that
> chasis, even if all the connections were 100baseTX.
Oversubscribed by 20%. In reality, a Cat6509 doing end-user
aggregation, loaded to the hilt with 10/100 ports, will rarely see 10%
utilization.
S
| | Stephen Sprunk, K5SSS, CCIE #3723
:|: :|: Network Design Consultant, HCOE
:|||: :|||: 14875 Landmark Blvd #400; Dallas, TX
.:|||||||:..:|||||||:. Email: ssprunk@cisco.com
