supervisor engine II plus or engine IV

[rsardinha]

We are in a buying process of catalyst 4500 to replace the 6006 (endofsupport). We are a broadcast tv station with 400 users unified in the same building accross 4 flors with 35xx switchs linked with fiber (GBIC), step by step we are introducing video in desktops(production users) although there are another networks for video broadcast not merged, so we want to chose best option (tailored to our size and future convergence) of supervisor card: II Plus or IV?

Thanks

[Edison Ortiz]

Money aside, go with Sup IV.

Sup II Plus does not support any advanced routing protocol other than EIGRP stub and I don't count RIP as an advanced routing protocol :)

See Table 2.

http://www.cisco.com/en/US/prod/collateral/modules/ps2797/ps5347/product_data_sheet09186a0080197424_ps4324_Products_Data_Sheet.html

HTH,

__

Edison.

[rsardinha]

Thanks Edison, cause I'm not a network specialist let me explain our context, we dont have external branches, we are concentrate in one building (lan) with a 2mpbs ISP connection to Internet (to increment in the future), we'll use QOS because to implement video on desktop (production users) so I would like to chose the best cost/effective supervisor according our size.

Regards,

Ricardo

[Edison Ortiz]

Ricardo,

What would happen if within 2 years thing change and you need full Layer3 routing protocols. You will spend more in the long run. Again, if money is a factor and SupII Plus meets your needs, then I guess you are looking for a validation to go with Sup II Plus...

[rsardinha]

Eddison,

To clear my ignorence, When you talk about layer3 routing protocols I think this is usable only when exist a wan (remote offices)? Or this feature is useful for local lan?

Thanks,

Ricardo

[Edison Ortiz]

I think this is usable only when exist a wan (remote offices)?

That's not correct. You can use EIGRP, OSPF on a LAN environment. It all depends on the customer/application requirements.

If you are going to spend the money, get the product that gives you the most for the buck. Getting a Supervisor that does not provide full L3 services, it's not something that I not would suggest.

Your Cisco 3560 switches would have more L3 services than your Core switch? Again, it makes no sense.

[rsardinha]

I've been waiting for an answer like yours (independent from my vendor), thanks for all, I have more arguments to Financial Dpt.

Thanks for all,

Ricardo

[Leo Laohoo]

I agree with Edison's post. I would rather have a Sup engine capable of doing Layer 3 in case the network design changes in the next few years (particularly in a multimedia environment).

You may also would like to look at the data sheet for the 6500 chassis and corresponding supervisor cards, the Sup32 and/or Sup720.

One of the reasons why I'm saying this is because the 6500 has a number of 10Gb line cards options.

In my humble opinion.

Good luck in dealing with Finance!

[Joseph W. Doherty]

I would recommend considering the "classic" 4500 very carefully. I consider the architecture a bit dated for a new replacement. (4500-E series, is a different story.)

For only 400 users, you might look at the Catalyst 3750G-12S as a possible replacement for the 6006, especially as a multi-member stack.

[YANGCCIE4]

Or two 3750G-12S make the core switches redundant protect each other...

that might be another option.

Regards,