The FCX is another alternative.
On Wed, Feb 23, 2011 at 11:26 AM, Chen, Qinxue <[email protected]> wrote: > We only need basic routing + switching, IPv4+IPv6, vrrp, some ospf, no > BGP, no hidden limits on ACL +PBR (like FESX448 has 1024 acl lines limit). > > ------------------------------ > *From:* George B. [mailto:[email protected]] > *Sent:* Tuesday, February 22, 2011 8:11 PM > *To:* David > *Cc:* Chen, Qinxue; [email protected] > *Subject:* Re: [f-nsp] FESX648 vs. NetIron CES 20204 > > I would say that greatly depends on the application and design of the > network. What is the application? > > > > On Tue, Feb 22, 2011 at 2:13 PM, David <[email protected]> wrote: > >> NetIron is the way to go. It's a newer platform that runs software that >> powers the bigger switches like MLX and XMR. More features, more memory, and >> smaller form-factor. >> >> David >> >> >> On Tue, Feb 22, 2011 at 1:41 PM, Chen, Qinxue <[email protected]>wrote: >> >>> Does anyone have experience on NetIron CES? Is it stable enough to >>> compare with FESX? We are trying to make a decision on which one to >>> choose. >>> >>> _______________________________________________ >>> foundry-nsp mailing list >>> [email protected] >>> http://puck.nether.net/mailman/listinfo/foundry-nsp >>> >> >> >> _______________________________________________ >> foundry-nsp mailing list >> [email protected] >> http://puck.nether.net/mailman/listinfo/foundry-nsp >> > >
_______________________________________________ foundry-nsp mailing list [email protected] http://puck.nether.net/mailman/listinfo/foundry-nsp
