Redundant-power-supply support on the Cisco Catalyst Express 500 Series switches
The Cisco RPS 675 Redundant Power System supports the Cisco Catalyst Express 500-24PC only. It does not support the Cisco Catalyst Express 500-24TT, the Catalyst Express 500-24LC, or the Catalyst Express 500G-12TC.
Note: RPS 300 is not supported on Cisco Catalyst 500 switches.
End-of-Sale and End-of-Life of the Cisco Redundant Power System 675 (RPS 675)
Cisco announces the end-of-sale and end-of-life dates for the Cisco Redundant Power System 675 (RPS 675). The last day to order the Cisco RPS 675 is October 15, 2007. Customers with active service contracts will continue to receive support from the Cisco Technical Assistance Center (TAC) through October 13, 2012.
Active backup power for up to two routers and switches with Class 3 Power over Ethernet (PoE) on 48 ports Additional management and configuration capabilities Hot insertion of external devices and power supplies The Cisco RPS 2300 supports all the Cisco Catalyst Switches supported by the Cisco RPS 675.
Hi all, I have to replace some X4500 pairs running with vss through new 95k pairs.I think vss is not compatible to stackwise virtual so what is the best way to replace the X4500 without big issues?regardsChris
Hi,Need suggestion regarding SDA setup for wireless using the latest 9K series catalyst switches for SDA deployment.What is the recommendation to setup SDA specifically for WLAN out of following options:1. Using cisco 9300 / 9500 as border devices and act...
Hi,I have the below topology Internet browsing is very slow for wireless users. So i started to shut down one by one to isolate any link issues, When I shutdown the 10g on the right side it worked fine .So my question is why does it not a...
Hi there. Quick question here. When is it applicable to configure the neighbor command under bridge-domain and when is it applicable to configure it under VFI? I understand that bridge-domain is like the layer 2 broadcast domain that consists of physical ...
Hi There, I am stuck with a weird issue related to vrf on a qinq layer3 interface. I have a requirement where ASR1000 router interface connecting to the service provider. SP forwards the traffic in QinQ (dual-tagging). I want the interface withi...