frnkblk at iname
Jan 7, 2009, 7:01 AM
Post #2 of 2
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.
From: Bryan Campbell [mailto:bbc [at] misn]
Sent: Wednesday, January 07, 2009 8:46 AM
To: frnkblk [at] iname
Cc: cisco-bba [at] puck
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.
Frank Bulk wrote:
> I'm getting to change out my NPE-400 with an NPE-G2 and while the GigE
> 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
> with the NPE-G2?
> cisco-bba mailing list
> cisco-bba [at] puck
cisco-bba mailing list
cisco-bba [at] puck