If there aren't any concerns about the console, or having to mess with
bandwidth points . . . you should be in good shape.
Apparently Brandon thought that limits were negative repercussions. I
never said that. Limits are what they are . . . and apparently, to some
folk, they aren't limits, but benefits.
Enjoy!
Frank Bulk wrote:
> Bryan:
>
> Points aren't a concern. Can anyone point out any Cisco documentation that
> points (no pun intended) out the limits?
>
> We .1q tagged interfaces today on the existing FastEthernet ports, but
> there's too much hairpinning for my liking, which is why I want to use
> physical ports. I diagrammed the traffic flows and using all 5 ports (3 GE
> plus 2 FE) eliminates almost all the hairpinning.
>
> Frank
>
> -----Original Message-----
> From: Bryan Campbell [mailto:bbc@misn.com]
> Sent: Wednesday, January 07, 2009 8:46 AM
> To: frnkblk@iname.com
> Cc: cisco-bba@puck.nether.net
> Subject: Re: [cisco-bba] NPE-G2 with C7200-I/O-2FE/E
>
>
>
> We did the same thing over a year ago. It is supported but not recommended.
>
> Leaving the I/O boards in creates limits. Programming would be through
> the old I/O board. Bandwidth points still apply with the old I/O board
> in place. All that for a couple of F/E ports . . .
>
> Take out the old I/O board and _all_ the limits go away.
>
> If you need additional ports, use .1q tagged interfaces via a Gig-E
> switch . . . life goes on.
>
> bbc
>
>
>
> Frank Bulk wrote:
>> I'm getting to change out my NPE-400 with an NPE-G2 and while the GigE
> ports
>> are a great upgrade, with this port shuffle two more Ethernet ports would
>> have been handy. After thinking about it for a while, I realized that
>> removing the NPE-400 didn't preclude me from keeping the C7200-I/O-2FE/E
>> installed. According to Cisco's website, that's supported.
>>
>> Anyone ever experience gotchas with using the C7200-I/O-2FE/E in
> conjunction
>> with the NPE-G2?
>>
>> Frank
>>
>> _______________________________________________
>> cisco-bba mailing list
>> cisco-bba@puck.nether.net
>> https://puck.nether.net/mailman/listinfo/cisco-bba
>>
>
_______________________________________________
cisco-bba mailing list
cisco-bba@puck.nether.net
https://puck.nether.net/mailman/listinfo/cisco-bba
bandwidth points . . . you should be in good shape.
Apparently Brandon thought that limits were negative repercussions. I
never said that. Limits are what they are . . . and apparently, to some
folk, they aren't limits, but benefits.
Enjoy!
Frank Bulk wrote:
> Bryan:
>
> Points aren't a concern. Can anyone point out any Cisco documentation that
> points (no pun intended) out the limits?
>
> We .1q tagged interfaces today on the existing FastEthernet ports, but
> there's too much hairpinning for my liking, which is why I want to use
> physical ports. I diagrammed the traffic flows and using all 5 ports (3 GE
> plus 2 FE) eliminates almost all the hairpinning.
>
> Frank
>
> -----Original Message-----
> From: Bryan Campbell [mailto:bbc@misn.com]
> Sent: Wednesday, January 07, 2009 8:46 AM
> To: frnkblk@iname.com
> Cc: cisco-bba@puck.nether.net
> Subject: Re: [cisco-bba] NPE-G2 with C7200-I/O-2FE/E
>
>
>
> We did the same thing over a year ago. It is supported but not recommended.
>
> Leaving the I/O boards in creates limits. Programming would be through
> the old I/O board. Bandwidth points still apply with the old I/O board
> in place. All that for a couple of F/E ports . . .
>
> Take out the old I/O board and _all_ the limits go away.
>
> If you need additional ports, use .1q tagged interfaces via a Gig-E
> switch . . . life goes on.
>
> bbc
>
>
>
> Frank Bulk wrote:
>> I'm getting to change out my NPE-400 with an NPE-G2 and while the GigE
> ports
>> are a great upgrade, with this port shuffle two more Ethernet ports would
>> have been handy. After thinking about it for a while, I realized that
>> removing the NPE-400 didn't preclude me from keeping the C7200-I/O-2FE/E
>> installed. According to Cisco's website, that's supported.
>>
>> Anyone ever experience gotchas with using the C7200-I/O-2FE/E in
> conjunction
>> with the NPE-G2?
>>
>> Frank
>>
>> _______________________________________________
>> cisco-bba mailing list
>> cisco-bba@puck.nether.net
>> https://puck.nether.net/mailman/listinfo/cisco-bba
>>
>
_______________________________________________
cisco-bba mailing list
cisco-bba@puck.nether.net
https://puck.nether.net/mailman/listinfo/cisco-bba