13

PROBLEM--

If we have tags with just specific model numbers, we'll quickly have a sea of tags. People can mention the specific model in their question, and searching will turn it up.

SOLUTION--

We go with more generalized tags. We have tags for manufacturer (e.g., 'cisco', 'juniper', 'netgear'), and we have more general tags for ... and here's the discussion. (happening via upvoting of the answers below)

So tags like:

"cisco-2900" (or "cisco-isr" "cisco-isrg2") "netgear-gs724t"

CLARITY--

My question, and so this discussion, it about TWO things: "manufac-..." in the tag (probably a communal YES) and then guidelines about what goes for the model "series" as that's a bit harder to decide.

(UPDATE) CLOSING THIS DISCUSSION--

Noone seems to object to having "MANUFACTURER-" prefixes on the tags. So I'm accepting answer here. I'm setting aside the undecided question of wether it should be "cisco-2900" (ambiguous) versus "cisco-catalyst" and "cisco-isrg2"

| |
  • ALL: I'm holding off accepting so others can post additional answers if they disagree. – Craig Constantine May 7 '13 at 21:43
21

Maybe it should be more about the series than a specific model, though? For example "cisco-3500xl" instead of "cisco-3548xl" and "cisco-2900" instead of "cisco-2921"?

| |
  • I like this. I feel it would be good to nip it in the bud early. It would give people a quick way to isolate platform issues opposed to drowning in a tag sea. – Pandom May 7 '13 at 21:39
  • I also like this MANUFACTURE-PRODUCTLINE... updating my question... – Craig Constantine May 7 '13 at 21:39
  • Here is an example though where cisco-2900 does not work, as it's referring to the switch not the router networkengineering.stackexchange.com/questions/15/… – SimonJGreen May 7 '13 at 22:21
  • I would suggest we specify "cisco-c2900" for the switch and/or combine it with something like "enterprise-switch". – scottm32768 May 7 '13 at 22:26
  • @scottm32768 That would follow the Cisco naming convention as well – SimonJGreen May 8 '13 at 7:12
  • 'Manuf-Productline' definitely seems like the more logical step and offers enough granularity whilst avoiding having a million different tags. – David Rothera May 8 '13 at 8:24
  • Ref cisco-c2900, are there large differences between c2950 and c2960, and even c2960s ? It needs to be on the generally accepted family name. – Jez May 13 '13 at 19:35
3

I think it should be more like or , and , as some model numbers are reused amongst product lines.

For exemple Cisco Catalyst 2900 series are ancient desktop switches, whereas Cisco 2900 series are modern enterprise routers (ISR-G2).

Model numbers might be to localized in time, while the answers could be still very valid.

Edit: In this edit the OP replaced by . However Cisco 3700 are again routers, not L3 switches. Moreover, Cisco 3560 switches are 3750 without stacking.

At least for Cisco, tagging with model numbers looks like a bad idea.

| |
  • I think your generalized "desktop-switch" tag genre is a separate and great idea! But are there any non-cisco model series reuses? ...and weren't the old catalysts asctuall "c2900" series, while the new[er] routers are "2900" series? – Craig Constantine May 7 '13 at 21:51
  • well, yeah c2900, but people could mistake the 'C' for Cisco and not catalyst. Moreover, what is true for a Cisco can (not necessarily) also be for another brand. – petrus May 7 '13 at 21:55
  • the confusion potential [you rightly brought up] is not a cross-brand problem. "cisco-c2900" and "cisco-2900" will never me confused for non-Cisco gear. The question is: How do we weigh the hazard of confusion when manufacturers reuse a model's series, versus having tags, which I think, will be too vague; "enterprise-router" will be a mondo pig with cisco and juniper comingled. ("enterprise-router" is a fine tag for people who want to see that combined stuff, but I still think "cisco-2900" should be the 'bottom' of the drill-down level of detail in tagging. – Craig Constantine May 7 '13 at 21:58
  • 1
    what about cisco-isr and cisco-isrg2 for those Cisco routers? – petrus May 7 '13 at 21:59
  • downside: going to be more tag editing... but upside is it's a better view of reality... problems in the ISR G2's probably span the series... like 2900 and (if i recall) 3900 were very similar just with more expansion available. I'm liking this idea (cisco-isr, cisco-isrg2) definitely over too-specific things like '2921'. – Craig Constantine May 7 '13 at 22:01
  • 1
    enterprise-router associated to cisco should avoid to bring up any juniper-related questions. – petrus May 7 '13 at 22:04
  • See another edit: networkengineering.stackexchange.com/posts/15/revisions : Catalyst 2900 is tagged cisco-2900, while they are not ISR-G2. – petrus May 7 '13 at 22:20
  • what's the right tag for that guy's WS-2948G? ...is there a catalyst "line" analogous to "ISR-G2" for the 2900 series of 'newer' routers? Or should the WS-2948G be tagged "cisco-ws2900"? I really like your idea of tagging them with the bigger "line" that Cisco has them under (ie, "cisco-isr", "cisco-isr-g2" for my 2921 example) – Craig Constantine May 7 '13 at 22:25
  • let us continue this discussion in chat – petrus May 7 '13 at 22:31
1

It seems to me as systems admin that occasionally dabbles in the networking side that the particular model doesn't matter. Should people be tagging against the version of IOS or firmware instead?

I guess it depends on the question, but it seems to me lots of things will equally apply to lots of different routers models, at least when it comes to configuration.

If the idea is to keep things generic, then you will want to encourage people to avoid even mentioning a particular series of routers for lots of questions.

If you have the same version of IOS on different router models the configuration is often the same same and the hardware doesn't matter.

| |
  • The problem is that nowadays it's almost like they spin a new train of IOS for each platform so it's only at the most abstracted levels (routing protocols/NAT/BGP/etc typically) that there is any commonality between, say, a 7600 running 15.2(special train) and a 3400 running 15.2(its own train). – Aaron May 9 '13 at 14:51

You must log in to answer this question.

Not the answer you're looking for? Browse other questions tagged .