Anyone looked at Extreme X480s ? I would wonder about their limitations in MPLS to the access environment.
Best Regards, -mat On 18 April 2010 21:48, Phil Bedard <[email protected]> wrote: > I've seen a presentation on them but that was over a year ago, and there were > a lot of things "coming" which weren't there yet. > > We've been looking at the ALU SAS-M platform recently. They are 24xSFP and > have models with 2x10GE and CES modules as well. They support > OSPF/ISIS/LDP/RSVP-TE (1:1 FRR only) but do not have much routing capability > (16K routes max right now) but if you are looking to extend VLL/VPLS services > they may work for most folks. The pricing on them is pretty good too. Not > sure on IPv6 support, think it's a roadmap item. > > Phil > > > On Apr 18, 2010, at 3:16 PM, Tassos Chatzithomaoglou wrote: > >> Anyone got any experience with Huawei's CX600? >> >> Two smaller models (X1 and X2) are coming out and they seem promising enough. >> http://www.huawei.com/news/view.do?id=11153&cid=42 >> >> -- >> Tassos >> >> Mark Tinka wrote on 18/04/2010 16:17: >>> On Thursday 15 April 2010 07:54:13 pm Anton Kapela wrote: >>> >>> >>>> Also, cer2k has 512k v4 tcam entries, dual ac/dc, >>>> consumes 1u of space, draws under 300 watts, and >>>> actually has working bgp/vpls/etc *today* -- not >>>> "somewhere over the me3400G rainbow." >>>> >>> I had a chance to beat these boxes a fair bit toward the end >>> of last year, during our consideration for platforms that >>> will let us extend MPLS into the Access. >>> >>> While they are formidable (Cisco's ME3400 is pretty useless >>> for MPLS in the Access, their 3750ME lacks Gig-E + Jumbo >>> frames on customer facing ports, e.t.c., Juniper's EX-series >>> boxes are pretty useless in this field too, and the MX80 is >>> worthy but too pricey/big), there's a number of issues that >>> still need sorting out (some may, some may never). >>> >>> While I can't get into the specifics of these limitations >>> (NDA, blah blah), you'll definitely be chasing the code for >>> at least another couple of years to reach parity with the >>> rest of your network. >>> >>> Hot on my list: IPv6 is currently not supported, but is >>> roadmapped for the future (feature by feature, of course). >>> >>> All that said, in all honesty, if you can live with the >>> limitations or workaround them, there currently isn't a >>> better product in the market that offers 48-port tri-rate >>> copper, fibre-based Gig-E/10-Gig-E connections with >>> "acceptable" MPLS support, especially if you're considering >>> just EoMPLS and VPLS. And coming from me, that's probably >>> saying much :-)... >>> >>> Cheers, >>> >>> Mark. >>> >>> >>> _______________________________________________ >>> cisco-nsp mailing list [email protected] >>> https://puck.nether.net/mailman/listinfo/cisco-nsp >>> archive at http://puck.nether.net/pipermail/cisco-nsp/ >> >> _______________________________________________ >> cisco-nsp mailing list [email protected] >> https://puck.nether.net/mailman/listinfo/cisco-nsp >> archive at http://puck.nether.net/pipermail/cisco-nsp/ > > > _______________________________________________ > cisco-nsp mailing list [email protected] > https://puck.nether.net/mailman/listinfo/cisco-nsp > archive at http://puck.nether.net/pipermail/cisco-nsp/ > _______________________________________________ cisco-nsp mailing list [email protected] https://puck.nether.net/mailman/listinfo/cisco-nsp archive at http://puck.nether.net/pipermail/cisco-nsp/
