[c-nsp] nexus 5548 versus C4900M
We have a service cluster build around a C4900M : it concentrates a mix of 10G (intercampus) connections and 1G connections (some backup lines and central services such as DNS, VPN servers,...) This works fine but to be able to connect all these, I had to add the 20 port 10/100/1000 UTP card and the extra 8x 10G card (with X2 convertor to provide for fiber SFPs). At the time that seemed a good and reasonable priced solution. This C4900M only does L2 traffic for the moment but will do some minor static (500Mb) IPv4 L3 routing in the near future. Now I have to create a new, similar service cluster. The first idea was to copy the setup but as we are also looking at Nexus for our datacenter, I noticed the Nexus 5548UP. This gives you out-of-the-box 32 1G/10G ports and costs (based on the prices I have seen) 25% less than the above C4900M configuration. Anyone has a reason why we should stick to the C4900M (or maybe similar C4500 solution) and not put a Nexus in place, apart from the obvious differences between IOS and NXOS for management ? I think, when adding the L3 card to the Nexus, the 25% price difference will disappear but are there any limits you see (arp table, mac address table size, buffering, IPv6 support..) that would take the Nexus out of the picture ? Greetings, Wim Holemans Netwerkdienst Universiteit Antwerpen Network Services University of Antwerp ___ cisco-nsp mailing list cisco-nsp@puck.nether.net https://puck.nether.net/mailman/listinfo/cisco-nsp archive at http://puck.nether.net/pipermail/cisco-nsp/
Re: [c-nsp] nexus 5548 versus C4900M
We have a very similar setup. Our nexus 5548s are pains in our ass. We have ten dead ports between the two, encountered huge issues upgrading the code and attempting to replace them with RMA units from Cisco. They also run incredibly hot, eat copper sfps for breakfast and are in general annoying to work on. We also have a 4500 acting as a core, and that works wonderfully for us. We too have a mix of gig and 10g interfaces. Plus, it handles all layer 3 stuff we've thrown at it (unlike the nexus). On Nov 21, 2012 12:32 AM, Holemans Wim wim.holem...@ua.ac.be wrote: We have a service cluster build around a C4900M : it concentrates a mix of 10G (intercampus) connections and 1G connections (some backup lines and central services such as DNS, VPN servers,...) This works fine but to be able to connect all these, I had to add the 20 port 10/100/1000 UTP card and the extra 8x 10G card (with X2 convertor to provide for fiber SFPs). At the time that seemed a good and reasonable priced solution. This C4900M only does L2 traffic for the moment but will do some minor static (500Mb) IPv4 L3 routing in the near future. Now I have to create a new, similar service cluster. The first idea was to copy the setup but as we are also looking at Nexus for our datacenter, I noticed the Nexus 5548UP. This gives you out-of-the-box 32 1G/10G ports and costs (based on the prices I have seen) 25% less than the above C4900M configuration. Anyone has a reason why we should stick to the C4900M (or maybe similar C4500 solution) and not put a Nexus in place, apart from the obvious differences between IOS and NXOS for management ? I think, when adding the L3 card to the Nexus, the 25% price difference will disappear but are there any limits you see (arp table, mac address table size, buffering, IPv6 support..) that would take the Nexus out of the picture ? Greetings, Wim Holemans Netwerkdienst Universiteit Antwerpen Network Services University of Antwerp ___ cisco-nsp mailing list cisco-nsp@puck.nether.net https://puck.nether.net/mailman/listinfo/cisco-nsp archive at http://puck.nether.net/pipermail/cisco-nsp/ ___ cisco-nsp mailing list cisco-nsp@puck.nether.net https://puck.nether.net/mailman/listinfo/cisco-nsp archive at http://puck.nether.net/pipermail/cisco-nsp/
Re: [c-nsp] nexus 5548 versus C4900M
On 21.11.2012 08:55, Holemans Wim wrote: We have a service cluster build around a C4900M : it concentrates a mix of 10G (intercampus) connections and 1G connections (some backup lines and central services such as DNS, VPN servers,...) This works fine but to be able to connect all these, I had to add the 20 port 10/100/1000 UTP card and the extra 8x 10G card (with X2 convertor to provide for fiber SFPs). At the time that seemed a good and reasonable priced solution. This C4900M only does L2 traffic for the moment but will do some minor static (500Mb) IPv4 L3 routing in the near future. Now I have to create a new, similar service cluster. The first idea was to copy the setup but as we are also looking at Nexus for our datacenter, I noticed the Nexus 5548UP. This gives you out-of-the-box 32 1G/10G ports and costs (based on the prices I have seen) 25% less than the above C4900M configuration. Anyone has a reason why we should stick to the C4900M (or maybe similar C4500 solution) and not put a Nexus in place, apart from the obvious differences between IOS and NXOS for management ? I think, when adding the L3 card to the Nexus, the 25% price difference will disappear but are there any limits you see (arp table, mac address table size, buffering, IPv6 support..) that would take the Nexus out of the picture ? We have a dual-5548P/L3+quad-2248 setup at a customer site, with some 20 2960 switches (1G and 10G versions) for access switches ... apart from some initial problems the setup is very nice and performing well ... when the project was initially looked at, the original setup (only one 5548 + 2 2248) was about half of what a comparable setup with required interface cards would have been with a 6500, except that the Nexus delivers the 960Gig L2 forwarding non-blocking, which the 6500 setup wouldn't have been able to do at the time, as its 10G cards are oversubscribed. 4500 series setups will be cheaper than a 6500 solution, but you will not have the performance of the Nexus, and I doubt that the price difference would be in favor of the 4500 ... In general, I reckon your choice depends on the actual usage - as a datacenter/campus switch, the Nexus has a definite price- and performance-advantage. If you will need to do non-ethernet ports, a modular switch/router like the Catalyst 4500/6500 will be the better choice ... -garry ___ cisco-nsp mailing list cisco-nsp@puck.nether.net https://puck.nether.net/mailman/listinfo/cisco-nsp archive at http://puck.nether.net/pipermail/cisco-nsp/
Re: [c-nsp] nexus 5548 versus C4900M
On 21 November 2012 07:55, Holemans Wim wim.holem...@ua.ac.be wrote: Now I have to create a new, similar service cluster. The first idea was to copy the setup but as we are also looking at Nexus for our datacenter, I noticed the Nexus 5548UP. This gives you out-of-the-box 32 1G/10G ports and costs (based on the prices I have seen) 25% less than the above C4900M configuration. Anyone has a reason why we should stick to the C4900M (or maybe similar C4500 solution) and not put a Nexus in place, apart from the obvious differences between IOS and NXOS for management ? I think, when adding the L3 card to the Nexus, the 25% price difference will disappear but are there any limits you see (arp table, mac address table size, buffering, IPv6 support..) that would take the Nexus out of the picture ? The 4500M is near end-of-sale, if you want a compact solution the 4500X is the better choice. L3 isn't the N5k's strong point - if you need L3 features or performance, study the data sheets carefully. Aled ___ cisco-nsp mailing list cisco-nsp@puck.nether.net https://puck.nether.net/mailman/listinfo/cisco-nsp archive at http://puck.nether.net/pipermail/cisco-nsp/
Re: [c-nsp] nexus 5548 versus C4900M
On Wed, Nov 21, 2012 at 6:55 PM, Holemans Wim wim.holem...@ua.ac.be wrote: Now I have to create a new, similar service cluster. The first idea was to copy the setup but as we are also looking at Nexus for our datacenter, I noticed the Nexus 5548UP. This gives you out-of-the-box 32 1G/10G ports and costs (based on the prices I have seen) 25% less than the above C4900M configuration. Anyone has a reason why we should stick to the C4900M (or maybe similar C4500 solution) and not put a Nexus in place, apart from the obvious differences between IOS and NXOS for management ? I think, when adding the L3 card to the Nexus, the 25% price difference will disappear but are there any limits you see (arp table, mac address table size, buffering, IPv6 support..) that would take the Nexus out of the picture ? N5K has a limit of effectively 25K MAC addresses. If you are even remotely thinking of using L3 go for an N7K, 6500 or 4500. Andrew ___ cisco-nsp mailing list cisco-nsp@puck.nether.net https://puck.nether.net/mailman/listinfo/cisco-nsp archive at http://puck.nether.net/pipermail/cisco-nsp/
