Re: Multiple small switches vs. a single big one; Granularity of control

[Mike Meredith <mike.meredith () port ac uk>]

On Tue, 2 Mar 2004 13:36:01 -0500, Sloane, David wrote:
> Can anyone with some good Cisco depth rebut these assumptions about a
> 6500-series switch "losing it's configuration?"

That's not me ... I'm still learning, but ...

> nodes).  If you really need gigabit speed firewall throughput between
> those networks, the FWSM will probably give you the best throughput
> because it sits on the highest-speed link.  For example, the switch
> fabric on the 6500 series is up to 720Gbps, depending on the

The supervisor engine may be capable of 720Gbps, but the FWSM certainly
isn't. A single FWSM gives you 5Gbps; four gives you 20Gbps.

> supervisor engine.  The FWSM looks like a variant on the PIX OS (with
> a different development/testing cycle) and the feature set seems more
> limited than the current PIX.

I haven't spotted many limits on the feature set, but yes it's much like
the PIX OS but lagging slightly.

-- 
Mike Meredith, Senior Informatics Officer
University of Portsmouth: Hostmaster, Postmaster and Security 
  Before long, Microsoft will attempt to patent the alphabet (hoping
  we'll have to pay royalties to use our keyboards and keep their
  stock solid).  -- Phil Paxton

Attachment: _bin
Description: