I few weeks ago, I did a replacement of a company core switch. They had two Cisco 4506s (that were not configured for HSRP) and a 2950 for Internet connectivity. I came in with three ICX6610s and got these ready for deployment. This scenario gave them a better solution for redundancy, performance, power savings, real estate gains, etc. Plus, financially, it was cheaper than other options. Here are some interesting pictures I took.
Below in this picture, you can see the three ICX6610s in top right. The two 4506s in the bottom of each rack6
Now, after the 4506s and 2950 (still pictured) are taken out:
FINAL RESULT: Although these Cisco were good to the network, the customer will get better performance, more rack space, and save money with the ICX6610s as the core.
This is the retired Shane Killen personal blog, an IT technical blog about configs and topics related to the Network and Security Engineer working with Cisco, Brocade, Check Point, and Palo Alto and Sonicwall. I hope this blog serves you well. -- May The Lord bless you and keep you. May He shine His face upon you, and bring you peace.
Tuesday, September 30, 2014
Pair Of Cisco 4506s And A 2950 Replaced By Three Brocade ICX6610s
Subscribe to: Post Comments (Atom)
Yikes!! When I think of a core network, I think of big Cisco boxes, lots of redundancy (power, SUP engines, network links, etc). Seeing just three 1U switches in the place of two Cisco 4500 switches freaks me out a bit. (I doubt it makes Cisco happy either!!) Do you still have the redundancy required at the core layer with the Brocades? And what about the Brocades playing nice with older access layer switches (Cisco, HP)?ReplyDelete
Actually, they have better redundancy than they had before. I have three 6610s, which I can choose where my connections go. IF one switch goes down, it will only take down a select few connections. Plus, since they are stacked together, I can double the bandwidth to the access closets, server farm, etc. Plus, each 6610 has dual power supplies (6 total here). Plus, the internal performance is better than the 4509s. Plus, Brocade does play nice with Cisco if you know how to configure it correctly. Plus, this solution was much cheaper than any Cisco solution provided.Delete
So, MORE bandwidth to the closets (WIN!), MORE power supply redundancy (WIN!), MORE performance (WIN!), stacking over HSRP (WIN!), cheaper financially (WIN!).
And, I literally had ZERO problems reported the next day after the cut. I stayed onsite to make sure. All went very well. I guess size doesnt matter after all. :)
Ok, I have to admit that is VERY cool. I have a large switch project next year, replacing a lot of EOL Cisco 3560's and 3750's...I will be looking at Brocade. BTW...I hear John Chambers is looking for you. ;-)ReplyDelete
:) Well, much like our common faith, it's all about the pursuit of truth... I was once a Cisco coolaide drinker myself, but as far as the switching gear goes, I had to face some tough realities. Just compare the spec sheets honestly, apples to apples. :)Delete
You reference cisco 4509s. There is no such model. You should update your blog with the correct cisco chassis...they are 4506's. Referencing the wrong cisco chassis discredits your comparison. Nice blog, btw.ReplyDelete
Yeah, they were 4506s. Don't know why I put 4509. Probably a late night.Delete