When you say about VLANs, the 2960s would be able to do VLANs I would have thought, just not things like private VLANs and interVLAN routing. The 2950s can do all that, and I don't think they reduced the capabilities past that.
You could simply use some form of access list so that only MAC addresses which start 0100.5e would be pointed that way, which is the default multicast MAC address prefix, and then chuck them out the VLAN you want to use for that.
Anyway, I'll return off the tangent, the only real advantages I could see with going for the 3560s would be interVLAN routing, CEF if you would want to use that, and private VLANs. Given all but the last two could be achieved by chucking a bog standard 800 series Cisco on each end, the difference in cost is a bit futile.
Edit: As mentioned, SX isn't single mode, its multimode, if you want Single Mode, you want LX, LH or ZX depending on distance. If you are running the full cable length between two far away sites, then you want ZX. If you are just going to a carriers handoff, you'll want LX/LH
You could simply use some form of access list so that only MAC addresses which start 0100.5e would be pointed that way, which is the default multicast MAC address prefix, and then chuck them out the VLAN you want to use for that.
Anyway, I'll return off the tangent, the only real advantages I could see with going for the 3560s would be interVLAN routing, CEF if you would want to use that, and private VLANs. Given all but the last two could be achieved by chucking a bog standard 800 series Cisco on each end, the difference in cost is a bit futile.
Edit: As mentioned, SX isn't single mode, its multimode, if you want Single Mode, you want LX, LH or ZX depending on distance. If you are running the full cable length between two far away sites, then you want ZX. If you are just going to a carriers handoff, you'll want LX/LH
