cancel
Showing results for 
Search instead for 
Did you mean: 
cancel
1798
Views
5
Helpful
16
Replies

MLS Switch series starts in Cisco

Suresh Babu
Level 1
Level 1

Hi,

Shell any one tell in Cisco from which series MLS switches starts

From which series manageable switches starts...

Regards

Suresh

HCL Infosystems Ltd

Hyderabad

2 Accepted Solutions

Accepted Solutions

Hi Suresh,

If our posts have answered your question(s), can you kindly mark this thread as "Answered"?

Thanks.

View solution in original post

Alright Suresh,

Read Peter's post above.  IP Base will support OSPFv2 but you have a single process only.  If you want more, IP Services is your next port of call.

View solution in original post

16 Replies 16

Leo Laohoo
Hall of Fame
Hall of Fame

All Cisco Catalyst switches are manageable switches.

Current Multi-Layer Switch (MLS) models are the Cisco Catalyst 3560-, 3750-, 4500 (based on Supervisor cards and IOS feature set loaded) and the Sup32, Sup720 and Sup2T for the 6500.

Hi,

Thanks for the reply..

You mean to say all the above Cisco 3000 series are MLS??????

Hi,

Thanks for the reply..

You mean to say all the above Cisco 3000 series are MLS??????

You mean to say all the above Cisco 3000 series are MLS??????

Yes and no.  I'm saying the models mentioned CAN PERFORM Layer 3 function based on the IOS feature set you are running.

For example, if your switches are running IP Base feature base, then it will do very, very limited layer 3 functions (RIPv1, RIPv2, OSPFv1, IS-IS).

Leo,

OSPFv1? Forgot our private discussion from December 29th, 2010?

Best regards,

Peter

OSPFv1?  Forgot our private discussion from December 29th, 2010?

Nearly did. 

But you got me thinking ...

The IP Base feature set supports OSPF for routed access to enable customers to extend Layer 3 routing capabilities to the access or wiring closet. The IP services feature set is required if you need multiple OSPFv2 and OSPFv3 instances without route restrictions.

The above-mentioned statement is found in the Release Notes for 12.2(55)SE under New Software Features.  Now I hope I'm wrong here, but it is the first sentence that keeps haunting me with the idea that IP Base supports OSPFv1 and if you want OSPFv2 or OSPFv3 one must use the IP Services feature set.

However, reading through this same Release Notes, I can't find IS-IS being mentioned in IP Base feature set.  Only RIP but does not mention whether it's RIPv1 or RIPv2.  The Release Notes reads like a marketing document rather than a technical document.

Hi Leo,

Now I hope I'm wrong here, but it is the first sentence that keeps  haunting me with the idea that IP Base supports OSPFv1 and if you want  OSPFv2 or OSPFv3 one must use the IP Services feature set.

My primary point is that OSPFv1 and OSPFv2 are incompatible, and Cisco does not implement OSPFv1 at all (I even doubt Cisco ever implemented it - according to John Moy, OSPF's author himself, it has been implemented only on Proteon routers and in what later became the GATED daemon for Unix stations - OSPFv1 was published in RFC 1131 in October 1989 and only two years after, in July 1991, the RFC 1247 with OSPFv2 specification was published). If there is a Cisco implementation of OSPF for IPv4, it is always OSPFv2. The IP Base contains OSPFv2 with some additional restrictions like allowing you to run a single process only.

I have checked the IOS Feature Navigator regarding the IS-IS: you are right, the IS-IS is available in IP Services only.

Regarding the RIPv1/RIPv2, I am practically sure that the IP Base contains both.

Best regards,

Peter

I have checked the IOS Feature Navigator regarding the IS-IS: you are right, the IS-IS is available in IP Services only.

Hi Peter,

I'm going to start with these two lines.  Yes.  I don't have an idea where I got the impression that IS-IS is supported in IP Base.  Oh well.  Note to myself ...

Regarding the RIPv1/RIPv2, I am practically sure that the IP Base contains both.

Oh good.  Because the Release Notes only mentions RIP.  What version, it doesn't mention.

My primary point is that OSPFv1 and OSPFv2 are incompatible, and Cisco does not implement OSPFv1 at all (I even doubt Cisco ever implemented it - according to John Moy, OSPF's author himself, it has been implemented only on Proteon routers and in what later became the GATED daemon for Unix stations - OSPFv1 was published in RFC 1131 in October 1989 and only two years after, in July 1991, the RFC 1247 with OSPFv2 specification was published). If there is a Cisco implementation of OSPF for IPv4, it is always OSPFv2. The IP Base contains OSPFv2 with some additional restrictions like allowing you to run a single process only.

I've never run on OSPFv2 with IP Base and I based my answer on the Release Notes.  Ok.  So I'll remember that bit in the future.

Thanks for the correction Peter. 

Hi Leo,

Thanks for the correction Peter.  

Don't mention it. It is an honor and pleasure to assist. I wish you could come to the Live! 2012 to London - I am thinking of attending it again, and it would be awesome to meet you in person

Best regards,

Peter

I wish you could come to the Live! 2012 to London

If only London and Sydney, Australia were just an hours away ...

I'll wait until Virgin Galactic can zap me from Sydney to London cheaply and probably my employer can let me go.  LOL

Reminds me of this story:

In one of my previous employment, one of our network vendors (not Cisco) decided to hold an 5 days in-depth technical training.  Because our section is the only one using this particular vendor in the core network, we decided to nominate our best.  Since the training was only to be held in US, the vendor was willing to foot the bill for everything including airfare, accomodation and food.  So OK.  The head office (in Texas) gave the approval.  He got packed, got his picture taken for his passport.  The works.

Then two weeks before departure, he was told by the in-country big-wigs that his trip was "pulled".  Instead someone from the in-country manager is going.  Now this manager couldnt tell the difference between a router and a fire hose even if his life depended on it.  Yup, he used this opportunity as a junket.  Dejected, we accepted the fate.

About a month later, HO sent out a "please explain" as to why the vendor was asking payment.  You see, the vendor organized a ONE-ON-ONE training.  No one came.  But someone used up the hotel and airfare.  In the end, we forwarded, to HO, the email telling us the trip was cancelled.  We never heard from HO about this incident again. 

Leo,

Considering the circumstances, your employer should pose a smaller problem of these two Anyone implementing a transporter from Star Trek? (Hopefully using TCP as a transport protocol, though - being transported via UDP sends chills down my spine )

Seriously, though, if there was an opportunity for you, please do consider it.

Best regards,

Peter

EDIT: Regarding the added story - whoa, that scares me, too... Hmmm, think of becoming a big-wig yourself!

Seriously, though, if there was an opportunity for you, please do consider it.

I always do.  Thanks for the invite. 

fb_webuser
Level 6
Level 6

layer 2 and layer 3 all switches are manageable , Router is also called layer 3 device .

---

Posted by WebUser Junaid Khan

Hi Leo,

Thanks.....

Rgds

Suresh

Review Cisco Networking for a $25 gift card