3560 Switch - L2 or L3?

Unanswered Question
Feb 16th, 2009

I'm thinking that they're L3, but can anyone confirm?



I have this problem too.
0 votes
  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5
Overall Rating: 5 (2 ratings)
Mohamad Qayoom Mon, 02/16/2009 - 10:55

Yes, they are l3 and very very similar to 3750's. The only difference I found between a 3750 and a 3560 is the lack of stacking capability is 3560.

Good luck.

John Blakley Mon, 02/16/2009 - 11:09

Thanks all! That's what I figured. =)

What's the advantages over the 4506 over the 3750? My boss was asking me if we should upgrade to the chassis. The only thing that I can figure is that it's chassis-based, and it probably has higher throughput. Any other reasons to upgrade? My 3750 stack is never stressed, so I can't see a good reason why.



Roberto Salazar Mon, 02/16/2009 - 11:14

Not sure what kind of sup but with supV on 4506 it will be capable of:

64 Gbps centralized switching capacity while 3750 have 32 Gbps.

For more educated comparison here are the data sheets for both platfroms:



John Blakley Mon, 02/16/2009 - 11:16

Can you tell me, or point me in the right direction, what a supervisor engine does exactly? What's it for?



Roberto Salazar Mon, 02/16/2009 - 11:18

in a nut shell, on modular catalysts, the sup is the "brain" of the box. Look at that data sheet I sent, it will have the information.

Jon Marshall Mon, 02/16/2009 - 11:22


A 4500 or 6500 without a supervisor but fully populated with ethernet modules etc. is just a very expensive door stop :-) ie. without a supervisor the switch can't do anything.


Jon Marshall Mon, 02/16/2009 - 11:19


4500 = dual supervisors, dual power supplies.

Weigh this against stacked 3750 switches which provide redundancy in a different way ie. multiple switches.

When i did a VOIP project we needed a lot of PoE ports on each floor. When we costed it up less than 4 stacked 3750's and it was cheaper to go 3750 than 4500. More than 5 3750's and the 4500 was more cost efficient.

Apart from throughput each platform will have it's own idiosyncracies in feature support and you need to check these with the data sheets / feature navigator.

Having said that, if your 3750's are not stressed, you don't need additional features supported by the 4500 but not 3750's and you are happy with redundancy of network i can't see reason to upgrade.


Joseph W. Doherty Mon, 02/16/2009 - 11:58

"When we costed it up less than 4 stacked 3750's and it was cheaper to go 3750 than 4500. More than 5 3750's and the 4500 was more cost efficient."

Just curious, was that with a 2nd sup and special dual sup (R) chassis (to make it more comparable to a 3750 stack's processor redundancy)? (Have done similar analysis with 6500s and found 2nd sup tends to skew cost of number of stack members vs. chassis.) This was also for non-E 4500 chassis, cards and sup(s)?

Jon Marshall Mon, 02/16/2009 - 14:14


Now you are asking :-). It was a while ago but it was definitely an R chassis ie. i think it was 4507R or 4510R from recollection.

Yes it was a non-E chassis as they weren't available at the time, ditto the cards.

As for redundant supervisor, i believe we did include that altho i could be mistaken. Certainly on 6500's the 2nd Supervisor as you say can skew the results altho you have to factor in potential growth + extra features.

My general rule of thumb is 5 or less in a stack then look to go to a modular chassis solution but each case needs to be taken on it's requirements within this general rule.

One thing i have found at some places i have worked is the mere mention of 6500 switches in the access-layer gets some people rather "worked up". The assumption that 6500 switches in the access-layer is always overkill is not always accurate in my opinion.



This Discussion