Probably the only time when Cisco Systems doesn't see a switch as being the solution to a problem is when it thinks a router will do the trick. Or maybe a server. With the proliferation of network-connected devices that are powered by switches through LAN cables, companies to move switches closer to the devices and get them out …
Do not look into laser with remaining eye.
When Cisco introduce power-over-fibre, have them call me.
Switches powered over the uplink is one of those things that have you go "oh right" and make you wonder what took'em so long. In cisco's case, that'd be fleshing out a full series of kit, assessing the market just how much it can be gouged, and then timing the whole thing. Of course, the concept is also vaguely self-defeating, so you can have your PoE gear powered from that on-your-desk switch but then you'd still have to plug that back in.
Yes, "secured" uplink ports are useful. In the limited sense that the discerning miscreant could just happen to carry a couple plugs and a crimping tool. Or might find some other way to subvert the thing. But even that isn't really the issue.
The real issue is that the cost of the cable is pretty much insignificant compared to having a bunch of cabling guys lay the cable. So you'd typically lay plenty, and securely terminate it in your locked wiring closet. And I very much doubt that even small, compact cisco gear (did we mention it's cis"70% margin after 40% discount off of list"co? It's /that/ cisco's kit) will be cheaper than the six cables (eight minus two uplink) it's replacing. So this is aimed at either incredibly silly managers, or situations where the economics really do work differently.
I haven't seen those differently-economicsed situations (yet?), and the examples given seem to advocate more thoroughly locked-down switches in cabinets, perhaps with more cabinets, for security and safety and vandalism considerations, but then, what do I know?
Am I missing the point
So "Rather than try to run a LAN cable to each device, the Cisco "borderless networks" strategy wants customers to put baby Ethernet switches in cruise ship berths, hotel rooms, kiosks, classrooms and conference rooms, and so forth and then run just one wire from these locations back to the wiring closet."
Hmmm, from where I stand this opens the network up to attack more?
How many ports is someone likely to need in a Cruise ship / hotel room / kiosk?
Yet another example of CISCO trying to reinvent something that dont need it.
"Hmmm, from where I stand this opens the network up to attack more?"
Yeah possibly, however if you have configured the switch correctly then a lot of the risk is reduced.
"How many ports is someone likely to need in a Cruise ship / hotel room / kiosk?"
1x IP TV Box
1x Wired Internet for guest laptop
sometimes 2x IP Telephones (if you're not using analogue phones)
occasionally 1x Wireless Access Point
Yeah...I'm missing the point, too.
Why not just run the cable? I'd rather run the cable than add another switch in a location that isn't a wiring closet. This just adds another device that could break.
The only use I see for this is if you already have drops installed in a room and don't want to run more cable. But, that's lazy and creates a mess.
Keep the switches in the closets, please.
or to put it another way....
This is how to charge 4x as much for a linksys switch.
At last !
Been wondering how long it would take for someone to do this, though I doubt many customers will be happy to pay for them (Cisco pricing, that well renowned vendor of really cheap kit !).
It's quite common, even with a new, well specced, greenfield installation to find yourself short of ports (as users decide to put a pile of stuff where they've previously assured you they will never ever want to and you never envisioned - and the inevitable result is a switch under a desk somewhere. Especially when some kit (IP phones are a prime example) are PoE, being able to run the remote switch off PoE would be great - giving the net admin the ability to remotely power cycle it in the event of problems. It also removes the problem of a group of devices disappearing off the network when it's power supply gets unplugged.
Even with standard PoE, there should be enough power available to run at least one PoE IP phone from a downstream port.
- Vid Hubble 'scope scans 200,000-ton CHUNKY CRUMBLE ENIGMA
- Bugger the jetpack, where's my 21st-century Psion?
- Google offers up its own Googlers in cloud channel chumship trawl
- Interview Global Warming IS REAL, argues sceptic mathematician - it just isn't THERMAGEDDON
- Apple to grieving sons: NO, you cannot have access to your dead mum's iPad