nav[aria-label="Primary Navigation"] { padding: 0; & ul { list-style: none; width: 100%; display: flex; flex-direction: row; justify-content: start; align-items: start; gap: 30px; padding: 0; & li { margin: 0; } & ul li { list-style: none; } } }

Cisco 4506 vs multiple L2 switches

azaghul

Probably a dumb question, but barring special purpose switching blades and redundant PSUs, are there any major gains or differences from using a Catalyst 4506 and multiple L2 Catalyst switches?

Find more posts tagged with

SAVE $250 on Your CISCO Boot Camp — Use Code "EXAM26"

Exclusively for TechExams members for Infosec Boot Camps starting before April 30, 2026

View CISCO Boot Camps

Comments

Coolhandluke

Presumably L3 switching is not needed ?

Forsaken_GA

It all depends on your requirements. If all you need is port density, then it really doesn't matter either way, though depending on how much port density you need, keep in mind that you're going to need to uplink all those layer 2 switches to a layer 3 device at some point, and router ports don't come cheap. You could simply aggregate all the switches into another layer 2 switch, and then have that link to a layer 3 device, but with fixed 1U switches, you might run into resource issues (ie, you may overflow your CAM table, or it's backplane, and there's no upgrading those switches)

Modular switches tend to be easier to upgrade if you need feature improvements. Instead of upgrading a crapload of fixed configuration switches, you just upgrade one or a few modular switches. If feature requirements change, and you need to upgrade hardware to do it, you generally only have to upgrade the supervisor in the modular switch (there are occasions where upgrading all the linecards may be necessary, but they are fairly rare), whereas an upgrade in hardware of every single fixed configuration switch might be necessary.

It all depends on your needs, the platforms have different purposes. Most fixed configuration switches are employed as access switches, or top of rack switches in a data center, and then aggregate back to a modular switch to handle distribution functions.

azaghul

Hi, thanks for the info.

Was not really looking at L3 on the 4506 as I understand it has limited L3 funcionallity.
Was mainly looking at it from a lab/practice perspective as you mostly see blade switches in production environments and you don't have the ability to tinker and learn. But if it mainly just comes down to port density...I can direct my training $ elsewhere.

Forsaken_GA

azaghul wrote: »

Hi, thanks for the info.

Was not really looking at L3 on the 4506 as I understand it has limited L3 funcionallity.
Was mainly looking at it from a lab/practice perspective as you mostly see blade switches in production environments and you don't have the ability to tinker and learn. But if it mainly just comes down to port density...I can direct my training $ elsewhere.

It's not worth the cost in a lab scenario, especially if you're footing the cost for the power. The learning curve for the differences between a fixed configuration and a modular switch is fairly small. 4506's will do Layer 3 just fine, if you're willing to spend the bucks for the better supervisor engines.

azaghul

Thanks for the info....
Just there is a 4506 w/Supervisor II+ (not the latest and greatest, but IOS v15 capable) with 5 x 48 port blades locally for $150, which I think came down as low as $50 before the holiday season. As for power, yeah, not something I'd keep running for long. But if I can just think of it as a 3550 up-scaled then I'll be fine. I like to keep an eye out for training options, even if they are put aside for that rainy day.

waragi

Sounds like a good price and not a bad side project.

VAHokie56

need 5x48 ports for lab???

I think if I was you I would opt for a 3550 to save space and money on power

pitviper

4506 is a pig (and loud!) - I wouldn't take one for free!