Cisco 4000 vs. 6000 Switch for Ip Telephony

[wgellenberg]

Can someone provide me specific reasons why a 6000 switch is better than a 4000 switch for IP telephony?

I understand that the buss/backplane in the 4000 is one issue, what are some others?

[arthur-davis]

Another issue is that of the external power supply for in-line power on the 4000. The 6000 has in-line power blades that are supported internally, although you might have to jump to 220v power. See

http://www.cisco.com/warp/public/cc/pd/si/casi/ca4000/prodlit/c4k2_ds.htm

[rkeblusek]

Better is relative to the sizing. If you are in a central design and need transcoding services there are plenty on the 6000 8-port PRI card. Personally I love this card for the DSP resources available. The 4000 has DSP resources but as you put in PRI cards and other devices these get used and minimal remain for transcoding.

The 24-port analog card in the 6000 is just okay. The VG248 is probably a better choice for a small price premium over using the 6000 blade.

Also, the 6000 is capable of powering phones without an external power supply suppliment. The 4000 requires PEM and power shelf.

[Tom Dillon]

Another consideration with the 4000 is it only supports one supervisor in the chassis. This creates a single point of failure for 240 devices (5 48-port modules). If you ever what to add L3 to the chassis, the L3 module is pretty odd. It's a long ways from the MSFC on the 6000s. It also doesn't support MLS.