Limitations of Packet Tracer?

I like the program, but I've gotten frustrated by it's limitations when trying to use it in the past.

These are some of the things I want to practice:

1. Creating VLANs. To include creating the router sub-interfaces and running VTP.

2. Intermediate Level ACLs. I want to use named ACLs and apply them to VLAN interfaces.

3. Implementing Port Security.

And WHY is it that it still only uses 2900 series switches? I mean we're up to 3750s now. They don't even recognize a standard command such as "sho interface status" or even "sho port status"

Even if I could do all of these things in Packet Tracer, would the commands be so different from our 6500 layer three switch we use as our Core along with 3750 switches that it wouldn't really help me that much?

Ideally, I'd like to set up a lab, but I can't see using switches older than 3550s since we have 3750s at work, and that gets costly.

Find more posts tagged with

Comments

CodeBlox

1. Creating VLANs. To include creating the router sub-interfaces and running VTP.

2. Intermediate Level ACLs. I want to use named ACLs and apply them to VLAN interfaces.

3. Implementing Port Security.

... But you can do all of these in packet tracer.

sleemie

Cool! I didn't think you could. That's good to know.

hiddenknight821

CodeBlox wrote: »

... But you can do all of these in packet tracer.

Priceless!

Where's the like button when you could use one right here on TE?

alan2308

hiddenknight821 wrote: »

Priceless! Where's the like button when you could use one right here on TE?

On the left side, right under the user's certifications, there's a little cloud image. Not quite a like button, but a lot better.

maestromasada

I agree, PT is lovely but only cover a small percentage of what you want to learn / experiment; very quickly you'd see that addition of 3750 or 3850, as well as more common devices in use nowadays, is really need it

I mean, Cisco could use this tool as a repertoire of all their products, that would be great

GDaines

I appreciate there are two schools of thought, and those in one camp are unlikely to agree with those in the other, but may I just say you wouldn't get any of these limitations or bugs if you used a physical lab.

And you can practice stuff like factory reset / password recovery, memory upgrades, actually fitting expansion cards etc which you can't do in a simulator.

Yes you have to pay for the kit, pay for the electricity when you're running the kit, and you need somewhere to put the kit, but all worth it in my opinion.

james43026

Yeah, unfortunately Packet Tracer was designed as a CCNA study tool, and nothing more. As others have mentioned. A physical lab is the best setup for anything beyond the CCNA level.

Jon_Cisco

I have to say while packet tracer is not perfect in any way it is a great resource.
It's good to want to practice things it is not capable of but keep in mind this is an entry level free tool.

I have some lab gear and packet tracer. I did probably 80% of my study in packet tracer. I would play with my lab and set something up once. Then I would use packet tracer. Sometime I worked the other way. You run into snags with real equipment and simulators/emulators.

My favorite feature of packet tracer has always been the ability to watch and follow the packet. In the early studies this was very helpful for troubleshooting.

dpfoutz

If you want to setup a Virtual Environment for testing various configurations you may want to consider GNS3 it's open source and a great tool but it does have certain limitation but still more robust then Packet Tracer.