> Not a Ciscofag
I have a working 48 port Cisco switch of some sort. What do with it /g/?
>>53904468
I dunno like maybe connect your network devices to it if you're running short on ports or something...
use it as a fucking switch, dumbshit
It's just a fucking switch you clown. plug shit into it or fuck off. If you want advice on how to polish it up so you can show it off then kill yourself. It's just a fucking switch
Do what the idiot at my last job did and enable spanning tree on environments that don't need it and unknowingly sabotage all of our clients while earning $90,000 a year.
Or you can actually git gud.
Sell it and get a more standard one that you can fuck around with.
Cisco shit is more trouble than it's worth outside of a corporate environment.
>>53904468
what, is it stolen ?
Just know that the serials, etc are registered at Cisco. Selling it could be tough.
>>53904468
Layer 2 only?
make vlans
>>53904643
You should use spanning tree in almost all environments involving users. People cause switching loops all the time
Do I need 48 internet cables to use this
>>53904818
Yes, they will then boost the speed and exit through those 4 ports which share speed equally.
>>53904468
Unstackable 2960? Sell it? You're really not going to need a 48 port for home use you giant fuckcunt
config etherchannel
>>53904657
Standard like what? Cisco shit is very well-documented.
How do I know if it's working?
Make a cool robot
>>53905021
Piss in it then go to a workstation and ping google
Why are Cisco switches so hyped? Many of them don't even do gigabit, yet they are expensive as fuck.
>>53905074
I'm guessing this is a good sign?
Now were getting somewhere boys
>>53905083
Your reasoning is basically "Why are BMWs so expensive,I can still drive the speed limit in my '94 corolla.".
I understand this isnt answering your question but look up a datasheet on a 2960X for instance and then google all the technologies and you might have an idea why people pay premium for a good managed switch
>>53904995
Like MikroTik.
So I'm a networking retard, if I configure static IPs on two machines and plug them into a switch they'll be able to talk to each other via these static IPs, correct?
>>53905226
>MikroTik is standard
>Cisco is not standard
In what context? Pleb networks?
>>53905295
Yes, as long as they are in the same subnet
>>53905350
So a switch basically bridges connections between computers connected to it but doesn't provide access to internet, doesn't offer a DHCP and such? Alright, so I've got another question, I could use one of these computers as a DHCP/DNS servers and set other computers' network settings to use that main computer as DHCP/DNS, right? But what about internet access? If the main computer had two network cards, I could potentially let the switch-connected computers use it as a gateway?
If the cords are green it wont work. according to tiab standard
Throw that legacy piece of shit into the trash before you hurt yourself
>>53905226
Who?
>>53905396
You would need a router for internet access
>>53905083
Amazing stability, "lifetime" (7-10 year) support, all the features you could ever want, easy to find people who can set them up. Cisco switches and routers are industry standard for any enterprise. Only downside is that they don't have cheap consumer gear.
Keep in mind that corporate networks being online and accessible is mission critical for most enterprises, most people need computers or a phone to work, datacentres with huge server farms that serve customers are worthless without a functional network, really there is no sensible reason to cheap out on this kind of thing.
>>53905484
If it's a Catalyst 3xxx series switch it will have layer 3 functionality, what's the model number behind the sticker OP?
>>53904468
You could switch some packets. Switches love packets.
>>53904643
>Do what the idiot at my last job did and enable spanning tree on environments that don't need it and unknowingly sabotage all of our clients while earning $90,000 a year.
How would enabling spanning tree completely bring down a network? The only thing I can think of is that they didn't have their VLANs consistent across their switches and some got isolated. But that would imply that there was already at least one loop which meant shit wouldn't have been working well anyway.
Ontopic is my lab. Not a ciscofag but it's the easiest stuff to find.
Played the shit out of this.
>>53905988
Not certified but I read about this, basically the new switch has a higher vlan revision number which tells the rest that it is the best authority to have vlan port tagging, the wrong vlan config is sent to all the others, the ports that were supposed to communicate with each other don't, then the software/computers don't work and the network is effectively taken down since the desired intercommunication is not working.
>>53905396
>So a switch basically bridges connections between computers connected to
At the simplest level a switch forwards packets based on destination MAC address
>provide access to internet
If it has routing functionality then yes it can.
>doesn't offer a DHCP
Depends on the switch
>>53906054
>basically the new switch has a higher vlan revision number which tells the rest that it is the best authority to have vlan port tagging
You're talking about a VTP wipeout which has nothing to do with enabling spanning tree.
>>53906092
Yes, I always mix those up. Care to explain the story, and how that guy fucked it up for your company? Want to study all this and get CCNA.
>>53906181
>Care to explain the story, and how that guy fucked it up for your company?
I'm not him but he's probably bullshitting or misunderstood what actually happened. If spanning tree actually blocks something then that means you already had a loop somewhere. And if spanning tree blocking a loop breaks your network then that means your network is poorly designed/configured.
