> 
> Yes. Cisco has a price. Cisco also has IOS, functionality, support,
> quality and reputation. Practically Cisco is always a safe choice, when
> it comes to network devices.

Oh, sure, nobody can deny Cisco is the best brand on the market. ;-) 
Maybe that will become useful in the future; at the moment it's pure 
overkill.

> They are freaking reliable routing switches with world-reputation
> support. Yes, that costs money.

That's true - but it's also true that the switches we've already got 
have run for 10 years without one single reliability issue.

>> Er... why?? This isn't necessary. All this does is massively increase
>> the complexity of my network. For no gain. Why are you going this?? (And
>> why is today the first I've heard of this?)
> 
> It makes the network more controllable and logical (or to be precise, it
> makes getting the network more controllable and logical possible). And
> it increases security, if made correctly.

I don't see it.

I mean, if we had one group of nodes that talk to each other and don't 
talk to anything else much, putting them onto a seperate subnet would 
make a lot of sense. But that isn't the case. We have 50 PCs and 4 
servers. All 50 PCs talk to the same 4 servers and the Internet. I fail 
to see how subnetting does *anything* in this situation other than 
adding unecessary complexity.

> They are making theier job (and yours too) more stable. It's a bit more
> work to configure the system and some work to maintain it, but it
> reduces big problems.

Such as?

> And yes, I'd love to get Catalyst to be the base of my homenet. But
> because of the price I'll probably have to just get 1800-series Procurve.

Your home network must be *much* bigger than mine. ;-)

[Mine has 3 nodes.]

-- 
http://blog.orphi.me.uk/
http://www.zazzle.com/MathematicalOrchid*

Post a reply to this message