Cisco 6513

Hi guys,

I am in the process of designing a high availabilty data center, and i have chose the cisco 6513; i have used cisco configurator, and it kept giving me that i am not allowed to have multiple service modules available (FWSM, IDSM, CSM, ACE) in one switch, which does not make sense at all for me.

Below you will find the service modules that i thought is required,

Product Description Quantity VS-C6513-S720-10G Catalyst 6513 Chassis+Fan Tray+Sup720-10G-VSS+IP Base S/w 1 CF-ADAPTER-SP SP adapter for SUP720 and SUP720-10G 1 MEM-C6K-CPTFL1GB Catalyst 6500 Compact Flash Memory

1GB 1 VS-S720-10G-3C Cat 6500 Supervisor 720 with 2 ports 10GbE and MSFC3 PFC3C 1 CF-ADAPTER-SP SP adapter for SUP720 and SUP720-10G 1 MEM-C6K-CPTFL1GB Catalyst 6500 Compact Flash Memory 1GB 1 WS-SVC-FWM-1-K9 Firewall blade for 6500 and 7600, VFW License Separate 1 SC-SVC-FWM-3.2-K9 Firewall Service Module 3.2 for 6500 and 7600, 2 free VFWs 1 WS-SVC-IDS2-BUN-K9 600M IDSM-2 Mod for Cat 1 SC-SVC-IPSV6.0-K9 IPSv6.0 SW for the IDSM-2 1 WS-X6066-SLB-APC Catalyst 6000 Content Switching Module 1 SC6K-4.2.2-CSM CSM 4.2.2 Software Release 1 WS-SVC-NAM-2 Catalyst 6500 Network Analysis Module-2 1 SC-SVC-NAM-3.6 Cisco Catalyst 6500 Series NAM Software 3.6 1 WS-CAC-3000W Catalyst 6500 3000W AC power supply 2 CAB-AC-2500W-EU Power Cord, 250Vac 16A, Europe 2

P.S: if you send me your email, i can send you the VISIO layout.

Your support is highly appreciated.

Regards, Andy

Reply to
Andy
Loading thread data ...

If this is truly a high availability datacenter, and a large one at that, you would want to distribute these components anyway. Your core should not also be your firewall for DMZs or internet, nor should it really be where content switching is facilitated. Assuming you are using centralized layer 2/3, ie. having all your vlan's homed on these and trunked out to the rest of the DC, then leave it with a Sup720 or

32, and the NAM for sniffing/troubleshooting. You should do another pair of switches for Firewalls (if not true firewall themselves, such as checkpoint). If you are running distributed layer 3, ie. each sector or pair of switches will be responsible for its own set of vlans and subnetworks, then you can probably lower your supervisor requirements unless you are really pushing a ridiculous amount of throughput. I will be happy to look over your visio, I would just push you in somewhat of a more distributed direction, where major features are across different pairs of switches, even if you do not elect to do distributed layer 3. Just my 2 cents, but of course all of this depends on the size of your company, what kind of throughput/ usage/traffic is going across your network, how much load you want to put on one set of hardware, and of course, budget.
Reply to
Trendkill

Hi,

I appreciate your response; I have sent you the visio layout. We are planning to have a 4 Mbps WAN connection for the datacenter to support our webhosting.

High availability for the datacenter is a must, but still the size of the DC is not that big.

Regards, Andy

Reply to
Andy

FYI - I haven't received anything yet.

Reply to
Trendkill

Hi,

I have sent it to the following email snipped-for-privacy@gmail.com, i will send it now again.

Regards, Andy

Reply to
Andy
4 Mbps WAN connection is not that big. If you had multiple 1,000 Mb/s connections that would be a large datacenter. Our data centers each have dual 100Mb/s internet connections, and multiple MPLS circuits for our WAN that total in excess of over 2 Gig/s each and they aren't considered "big".

We do not use any of the 6500 service modules because 1) they are too expensive, 2) there much better products available for less money. You pay a huge premium for using the FW, SLB and NAM modules in a 6500, without any benefit other than they reside in a single chassis. You would be better off purchasing Cisco's standalone products (cheaper) or 3rd party (cheaper and/or better). The other disadvantage of using all those blades in the same chassis, is that if you have a problem with the chassis, EVERYTHING is down. Not a very good fault tolerant design.

We just recently did some investigation to replace our content-switching infrastructure and the CSM module is very out of date technology and you shouldn't waste your money on it. The ACE module is really good, but very, very expensive. F5 is really good too, but even more expensive than ACE. Netscaler is a better content switching solution than either, and its about

1/2 to 1/3 the cost. We were very skeptical because it was so much cheaper, but found it to be a better product and less expensive than everything else we looked at.

Reply to
Thrill5

Cabling-Design.com Forums website is not affiliated with any of the manufacturers or service providers discussed here. All logos and trade names are the property of their respective owners.