Sign in with
Sign up | Sign in
Your question

Thinking of replacing Baystack 450-24T

Last response: in Networking
Share
Anonymous
August 24, 2004 12:43:43 AM

Archived from groups: comp.dcom.lans.ethernet (More info?)

Back in 1998, the office I work in was just switching to 100BT
networking with fewer than 15 nodes. I bought a Baystack 450-24T
before Nortel bought Bay Networks, and bought another one after the
purchase when we grew beyond the 24 port limitation. Well, it's time
for another upgrade and I'm wondering what direction to go in.

The first consideration is absolute growth. I really can't see the
organization grow beyond 96 nodes (double) in our current building.
We're nudging 48 with our office space just about at capacity and an
overcapacity of network printers. We don't have any Gigabit ethernet
devices, though I'd like the option of adding a few servers at that
capacity for the back-office servers. Since the vast majority of my
devices are 100BT (with a sprinkling of 10BT), the idea of a switch
with gigabit uplinks looks very attractive. That or a chassis-based
switch.

One nice thing about the 450-24T is the upgrade module. I currently
have to support a 100BASE-FX run to a warehouse location more than
100M from my network core, so would need to find a way to replace
that. The 450-24T hasn't ever seemed to support this configuration in
full duplex mode, so I'm not too married to the current hardware. Any
suggestions for re-using my fiber run with different hardware (perhaps
just a 100BT transciever?) would be appreciated.

What class of hardware? We haven't really grown that much, and I'm
wondering if manufacturers of consumer level equipment have caught up
to my small-office needs? Netgear makes a model, the FSM726S, with
over a 12Gbps backplane, cascading, and 2x1000BT uplinks. That's a
bigger backplane than my current Baystacks, with what looks like most
of the features (except for the redundant cascading that the 450-24T
has...). Anything wrong with a guy with < 100 ports considering this
class of hardware?

I've looked at chassis-based switches from a couple different
manufacturers and can't seem to get the economics to work out when
comparing to a couple of these Netgears at $500 per.

Any thoughts, pointers, or reccomendations?

Thanks in advance.
Anonymous
August 24, 2004 4:18:01 PM

Archived from groups: comp.dcom.lans.ethernet (More info?)

John White wrote:
> Back in 1998, the office I work in was just switching to 100BT
> networking with fewer than 15 nodes. I bought a Baystack 450-24T
> before Nortel bought Bay Networks, and bought another one after the
> purchase when we grew beyond the 24 port limitation. Well, it's time
> for another upgrade and I'm wondering what direction to go in.
>
> The first consideration is absolute growth. I really can't see the
> organization grow beyond 96 nodes (double) in our current building.
> We're nudging 48 with our office space just about at capacity and an
> overcapacity of network printers. We don't have any Gigabit ethernet
> devices, though I'd like the option of adding a few servers at that
> capacity for the back-office servers. Since the vast majority of my
> devices are 100BT (with a sprinkling of 10BT), the idea of a switch
> with gigabit uplinks looks very attractive. That or a chassis-based
> switch.
>
> One nice thing about the 450-24T is the upgrade module. I currently
> have to support a 100BASE-FX run to a warehouse location more than
> 100M from my network core, so would need to find a way to replace
> that. The 450-24T hasn't ever seemed to support this configuration in
> full duplex mode, so I'm not too married to the current hardware. Any
> suggestions for re-using my fiber run with different hardware (perhaps
> just a 100BT transciever?) would be appreciated.
>
> What class of hardware? We haven't really grown that much, and I'm
> wondering if manufacturers of consumer level equipment have caught up
> to my small-office needs? Netgear makes a model, the FSM726S, with
> over a 12Gbps backplane, cascading, and 2x1000BT uplinks. That's a
> bigger backplane than my current Baystacks, with what looks like most
> of the features (except for the redundant cascading that the 450-24T
> has...). Anything wrong with a guy with < 100 ports considering this
> class of hardware?
>
> I've looked at chassis-based switches from a couple different
> manufacturers and can't seem to get the economics to work out when
> comparing to a couple of these Netgears at $500 per.
>
> Any thoughts, pointers, or reccomendations?
>
> Thanks in advance.

I'd stick with the baystacks and replace the 100base-fx to the warehouse
with 1000base-sx, so you can re-use the fiber. What is on the other end
of that link (at the warehouse?) I was running 100base-fx (before
upgrading to 1000base-sx) full duplex between baystack 450's with no
problems at all.

I'd stay away from the netgear fsm726s boxes - I have several and they
constantly give me headaches - the firmware is buggy as hell, and
netgear support is CLUELESS. They can barely support consumer their
consumer class junk. For enterprise stuiff, avoid them like the plague!

Also - the fsm726s lack the following features that the baystack 450's
DO have:
1) VLAN Ingress filtering (A MUST if you use tagged vlans, IMO)
2) Many to one port mirroring - the netgears can only do one to one. So
if you want use a sniffer to monitor more than one port, you can't use a
netgear.

Also the netgear has problems with properly handling multicast traffic
in some cases. Can cause big problems, esp if you run a mixed
windows/netware environment.
Yes, the baystacks MUCH are more expensive. But you get what you pay for.
Anonymous
August 24, 2004 6:38:49 PM

Archived from groups: comp.dcom.lans.ethernet (More info?)

In article <e3a21ac4.0408231943.4132348e@posting.google.com>, johnjohn-
gg@triceratops.com says...
> Back in 1998, the office I work in was just switching to 100BT
> networking with fewer than 15 nodes. I bought a Baystack 450-24T
> before Nortel bought Bay Networks, and bought another one after the
> purchase when we grew beyond the 24 port limitation. Well, it's time
> for another upgrade and I'm wondering what direction to go in.
>
> The first consideration is absolute growth. I really can't see the
> organization grow beyond 96 nodes (double) in our current building.
> We're nudging 48 with our office space just about at capacity and an
> overcapacity of network printers. We don't have any Gigabit ethernet
> devices, though I'd like the option of adding a few servers at that
> capacity for the back-office servers. Since the vast majority of my
> devices are 100BT (with a sprinkling of 10BT), the idea of a switch
> with gigabit uplinks looks very attractive. That or a chassis-based
> switch.
>
> One nice thing about the 450-24T is the upgrade module. I currently
> have to support a 100BASE-FX run to a warehouse location more than
> 100M from my network core, so would need to find a way to replace
> that. The 450-24T hasn't ever seemed to support this configuration in
> full duplex mode, so I'm not too married to the current hardware. Any
> suggestions for re-using my fiber run with different hardware (perhaps
> just a 100BT transciever?) would be appreciated.
>
> What class of hardware? We haven't really grown that much, and I'm
> wondering if manufacturers of consumer level equipment have caught up
> to my small-office needs? Netgear makes a model, the FSM726S, with
> over a 12Gbps backplane, cascading, and 2x1000BT uplinks. That's a
> bigger backplane than my current Baystacks, with what looks like most
> of the features (except for the redundant cascading that the 450-24T
> has...). Anything wrong with a guy with < 100 ports considering this
> class of hardware?
>
> I've looked at chassis-based switches from a couple different
> manufacturers and can't seem to get the economics to work out when
> comparing to a couple of these Netgears at $500 per.
>
> Any thoughts, pointers, or reccomendations?


You might want to look at the stackable switches that Nortel and Cisco
offers. It offers a resilient chassis in terms using the stack to wrap
around a failed switch. But another you should seriously consider is
802.3af POE. Sooner or later, you'll need to deploy a wireless access
point. Having Power Over Ethernet can be a life saver. It's easy to
run a data cable to everywhere, but power is another matter altogether.

The 3750 series from Cisco may fit your need. They have 24 and 48 port
varieties. Keep in mind that on the 24 model, only 12 are 802.3af
compliant. The switches are all 10/100/1000-T capable. It also has
small form factor GBICs so that you can reuse the fiber you have in
place.



--

hsb

"Somehow I imagined this experience would be more rewarding" Calvin
*************** USE ROT13 TO SEE MY EMAIL ADDRESS ****************
********************************************************************
Due to the volume of email that I receive, I may not not be able to
reply to emails sent to my account. Please post a followup instead.
********************************************************************
Related resources
Anonymous
August 24, 2004 6:38:50 PM

Archived from groups: comp.dcom.lans.ethernet (More info?)

Hansang Bae wrote:


> You might want to look at the stackable switches that Nortel and Cisco
> offers.

Of course what he already has is a stackable switch from nortel...
(baystack 450)

> It offers a resilient chassis in terms using the stack to wrap
> around a failed switch. But another you should seriously consider is
> 802.3af POE.

I'd recommend the nortel baystack 460 if he needs that. I believe (could
be wrong) that will stack with his existing 450.

> Sooner or later, you'll need to deploy a wireless access
> point. Having Power Over Ethernet can be a life saver. It's easy to
> run a data cable to everywhere, but power is another matter altogether.

Yes. But I would say ditching his nortel investment and switching to
more expensive cisco equipment is a dumb idea.
Anonymous
August 24, 2004 9:28:06 PM

Archived from groups: comp.dcom.lans.ethernet (More info?)

In article <10imqonptusjr46@news.supernews.com>,
T. Sean Weintz <strap@hanh-ct.org> wrote:
:I'd recommend the nortel baystack 460 if he needs that. I believe (could
:be wrong) that will stack with his existing 450.

The 460 is just the POE version of the 450, with no gig links.

The 470-24T stacks with the 450, but the 470-48T does NOT stack with the 450.
Both have two GBIC ports, but the backplane is only twice as fast
as the 450's, so if you are anywhere close to stressing your 450's
then you need to go higher than the 470's.
--
*We* are now the times. -- Wim Wenders (WoD)
Anonymous
August 24, 2004 9:31:23 PM

Archived from groups: comp.dcom.lans.ethernet (More info?)

In article <10imqonptusjr46@news.supernews.com>, strap@hanh-ct.org
says...
> Of course what he already has is a stackable switch from nortel...
> (baystack 450)

Of course I meant "newer" stack configurations. The model number
escapes me at the moment.


[snip: POE]

> Yes. But I would say ditching his nortel investment and switching to
> more expensive cisco equipment is a dumb idea.

Perhaps. But he stated that he's not married to the hardware. From a
support standpoint - assuming he requires one - it's much easier to find
someone with Cisco hardware experience that Nortel. That's a fact
whether you are a Cisco lover or a hater. I happen to like Nortel
equipment for L2 use. Nortel's L3 boxes have been incredibly unstable
when using IPX along side IP.

--

hsb

"Somehow I imagined this experience would be more rewarding" Calvin
*************** USE ROT13 TO SEE MY EMAIL ADDRESS ****************
********************************************************************
Due to the volume of email that I receive, I may not not be able to
reply to emails sent to my account. Please post a followup instead.
********************************************************************
!