[31841] in North American Network Operators' Group
Re: Cheapest ethernet switch with monitor/mirror port?
daemon@ATHENA.MIT.EDU (Henry Yen)
Mon Oct 23 12:08:58 2000
Message-ID: <20001023120416.H24100@nntp.AegisInfoSys.com>
Date: Mon, 23 Oct 2000 12:04:16 -0400
From: Henry Yen <henry@AegisInfoSys.com>
To: Stewart MacLund <sundie@lunaticfringe.org>, nanog@merit.edu
Mail-Followup-To: Stewart MacLund <sundie@lunaticfringe.org>,
nanog@merit.edu
Mime-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
In-Reply-To: <39F44A55.A509771F@lunaticfringe.org>; from Stewart MacLund on Mon, Oct 23, 2000 at 10:25:26AM -0400
Errors-To: owner-nanog-outgoing@merit.edu
On Mon, Oct 23, 2000 at 10:25:26AM -0400, Stewart MacLund wrote:
> > www.datacommwarehouse.com lists the 3548 with enterprise s/w at $3,630US.
> > a 16-port 460t lists for $830US. a 24-port 460t lists for $1110US.
> > cheaper out of the box as well as cheaper per port, or did i miss something?
> My apologies. I was actually looking at an Intel 510T switch, not the 460T.
> The 510T is a stackable switch. The 3548 ran me 5385cdn, and the 510T was 2276.
> Since the 3548 is 48 ports, it's 111.63cdn a port. The 510T was 94.83 a port.
> Oh. Hm. Odd. Why the hell did i go with the Cisco? Oh, i remember. The Intel
> was a 4 week delivery thing, whilst the 3548 was immediate. And i'm Cisco biased.
> :)
and the 460t/16 would be about 77cdn per port. i tend to be cisco-biased
when it comed to routers (or, perhaps it's more accurate to say i'm
biased _against_ most of cisco's router competitors...).
on the other hand, when we're talking LAN instead of WAN (for small stuff,
anyway), i'm of the opinion that the cisco line-up is much too
expensive (and i don't need that much handholding for a lan switch, and
i've already got cco for my router contracts anyway),
and a bunch of it is getting long in the tooth.
> Looking at my competetive price quote, i was also looking at Nortel Baystack
> 450-24T ENET Switch for 2618cdn, a 3COM Superstack II Switch 3900 - 36 Port for
> 4429cdn, and some variations for ports on the cisco and 3com products.
we've had bad experiences with baytel lan stuff, and who knows what direction
3com is going in now-a-days (mid-range LAN doesn't seem to be it, though).
> > it appears allied telesyn has a 24-port fully managed switch for $740
> > (AT-8126XL-10), as well as a 16-port model (AT-8118), and although
> > i'd be surprised if port monitoring weren't a feature, the a-t website
> > doesn't seem to specifically mention it.
> Hm. Buyer beware. Check to make sure. Frankly, i have nothing but good
> things to say abou the 3548. It's very robust, stacks well, and monitoring is a
> snap. Mine run CiscoIOS 12.0, which has every feature i'd ever want. You could
> check to see what the non-enterprise-load-of-the-software version runs for. I'm
> sure it's cheaper. There was a specific reason i wanted the enterprise load on
> mine, but being monday morning, my brain is not quite in gear yet. (Hence the
> train of thought being typed in earlier)
ios12 is a good thing for cisco routers, agreed. they finally folded in nat
without requiring the firewall or enterprise feature set.
but the original poster seemed to be looking for a cheapie (although reliable,
i assume, or why post the question on nanog, after all...) switch that
he could snarf a monitor port from, and not a general recommendation for
that capability for a mid-range or high-end switch.
i think once you get down to the $800 or so range (1200cdn), there's not going
to be much difference in what you get.
--
Henry Yen Aegis Information Systems, Inc.
Senior Systems Programmer Hicksville, New York
