Cisco 6513
Andy
I am in the process of designing a high availabilty data center, and i
have chose the cisco 6513; i have used cisco configurator, and it kept
giving me that i am not allowed to have multiple service modules
available (FWSM, IDSM, CSM, ACE) in one switch, which does not make
sense at all for me.
Below you will find the service modules that i thought is required,
Product
Description Quantity
VS-C6513-S720-10G Catalyst 6513 Chassis+Fan Tray+Sup720-10G-VSS+IP
Base S/w 1
CF-ADAPTER-SP SP adapter for SUP720 and
SUP720-10G 1
MEM-C6K-CPTFL1GB Catalyst 6500 Compact Flash Memory
1GB 1
VS-S720-10G-3C Cat 6500 Supervisor 720 with 2 ports 10GbE and
MSFC3 PFC3C 1
CF-ADAPTER-SP SP adapter for SUP720 and
SUP720-10G 1
MEM-C6K-CPTFL1GB Catalyst 6500 Compact Flash Memory
1GB 1
WS-SVC-FWM-1-K9 Firewall blade for 6500 and 7600, VFW License
Separate 1
SC-SVC-FWM-3.2-K9 Firewall Service Module 3.2 for 6500 and 7600, 2
free VFWs 1
WS-SVC-IDS2-BUN-K9 600M IDSM-2 Mod for
Cat 1
SC-SVC-IPSV6.0-K9 IPSv6.0 SW for the
IDSM-2 1
WS-X6066-SLB-APC Catalyst 6000 Content Switching
Module 1
SC6K-4.2.2-CSM CSM 4.2.2 Software
Release 1
WS-SVC-NAM-2 Catalyst 6500 Network Analysis
Module-2 1
SC-SVC-NAM-3.6 Cisco Catalyst 6500 Series NAM Software
3.6 1
WS-CAC-3000W Catalyst 6500 3000W AC power
supply 2
CAB-AC-2500W-EU Power Cord, 250Vac 16A,
Europe 2
P.S: if you send me your email, i can send you the VISIO layout.
Your support is highly appreciated.
Regards,
Andy
Trendkill
If this is truly a high availability datacenter, and a large one at
that, you would want to distribute these components anyway. Your core
should not also be your firewall for DMZs or internet, nor should it
really be where content switching is facilitated. Assuming you are
using centralized layer 2/3, ie. having all your vlan's homed on these
and trunked out to the rest of the DC, then leave it with a Sup720 or
32, and the NAM for sniffing/troubleshooting. You should do another
pair of switches for Firewalls (if not true firewall themselves, such
as checkpoint). If you are running distributed layer 3, ie. each
sector or pair of switches will be responsible for its own set of
vlans and subnetworks, then you can probably lower your supervisor
requirements unless you are really pushing a ridiculous amount of
throughput. I will be happy to look over your visio, I would just
push you in somewhat of a more distributed direction, where major
features are across different pairs of switches, even if you do not
elect to do distributed layer 3. Just my 2 cents, but of course all
of this depends on the size of your company, what kind of throughput/
usage/traffic is going across your network, how much load you want to
put on one set of hardware, and of course, budget.
Andy
I appreciate your response; I have sent you the visio layout. We are
planning to have a 4 Mbps WAN connection for the datacenter to support
our webhosting.
High availability for the datacenter is a must, but still the size of
the DC is not that big.
Regards,
Andy
Trendkill
FYI - I haven't received anything yet.
Andy
I have sent it to the following email jpm...@gmail.com, i will send
it now again.
Regards,
Andy
Thrill5
connections that would be a large datacenter. Our data centers each have
dual 100Mb/s internet connections, and multiple MPLS circuits for our WAN
that total in excess of over 2 Gig/s each and they aren't considered "big".
We do not use any of the 6500 service modules because 1) they are too
expensive, 2) there much better products available for less money. You pay
a huge premium for using the FW, SLB and NAM modules in a 6500, without any
benefit other than they reside in a single chassis. You would be better off
purchasing Cisco's standalone products (cheaper) or 3rd party (cheaper
and/or better). The other disadvantage of using all those blades in the
same chassis, is that if you have a problem with the chassis, EVERYTHING is
down. Not a very good fault tolerant design.
We just recently did some investigation to replace our content-switching
infrastructure and the CSM module is very out of date technology and you
shouldn't waste your money on it. The ACE module is really good, but very,
very expensive. F5 is really good too, but even more expensive than ACE.
Netscaler is a better content switching solution than either, and its about
1/2 to 1/3 the cost. We were very skeptical because it was so much cheaper,
but found it to be a better product and less expensive than everything else
we looked at.
"Andy" <dand...@hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:eb097069-9fe8-4b4a...@z17g2000hsg.googlegroups.com...