On Dec 1, 2009, at 12:25 AM, Kevin Loch wrote:
Will the 2T and new LC's work in the 7600 chassis?
That depends upon if/when the 7600 team commit to the putative, unannounced
hardware we're speculating about which we don't know for sure exists, or when
it will be available, if it is.
;
Best
On Mon, 30 Nov 2009 20:18:13 +0100, you wrote:
Best to ask these questions of your Cisco account team.
Exactly :)
They say: We don't know. We can't get a definite answer from the BU.
-A
___
cisco-nsp mailing list cisco-nsp@puck.nether.net
Asbjorn Hojmark - Lists wrote:
On Mon, 30 Nov 2009 20:18:13 +0100, you wrote:
Best to ask these questions of your Cisco account team.
Exactly :)
They say: We don't know. We can't get a definite answer from the BU.
Hopefully they won't screw everyone (again) who forklifted their 6500's
to
On Nov 28, 2009, at 12:43 PM, Derick Winkworth wrote:
..and now you have a sh*tpile of boxes in your environment running different
versions of software with varying features for management and so forth.
Welcome to the Internet.
;
I guess, unless you are doing 10G martini l2 ckts, and want to waste capital
on numerous excess devices increasing network complexity.
- Jared
On Nov 27, 2009, at 11:03 PM, Dobbins, Roland wrote:
So, this simply leaves MPLS termination as the primary issue, does it not?
If this is
On 27/11/2009, at 6:41 PM, Asbjorn Hojmark - Lists wrote:
On Fri, 27 Nov 2009 14:33:37 +1100, you wrote:
Except, of cause, the N7K doesn't currently do MPLS and won't for
another year, and when it does it will, as always, be released in
fases.
fast forward to now from Nexus first release
On Thursday 26 November 2009 07:32:37 am David Hughes wrote:
From a customer perspective who uses 6500s for L2/L3
aggregation in the DC and MPLS/IP core functionality, I
can see them losing their shine. They are a solid
platform and I do like them a lot but working with the
caveats can
Really. The product seems to be selling quite well. You are over
stating. Keep it real.
That being said I wish vendors would include mainstream features
(which mpls has become). In early releases of software. That is not
cisco specific.
Sent from my iPhone
On Nov 27, 2009, at 10:33 AM,
Jason Plank wrote:
Really. The product seems to be selling quite well. You are over
stating. Keep it real.
Hardly. It means that people are using the Nexus as a L2 switching
workhorse and relying on additional L3 hardware to bring in the basic
MPLS/VPN capabilities.
Justin
On 2009-11-27 11:01, Mark Tinka wrote:
However, for any new purchases, we're now looking at the
Nexus 7000's and Juniper's EX8200's because they make more
sense for 10Gbps Layer 2 aggregation, and will scale to
40Gbps and 100Gbps.
Even with the SUP2T looming in the horizon, we'd be insane
With the new LCs yes, it will scale 10Gbit/s, as the new switch
fabric will offer more than 40Gbit/s per slot. Wait for it, don't
go insane right now :)
The fabric (and this is a EE joke regarding the
weave of the PCB glass fiber determining the
dielectric properties that determine the
On 28/11/2009, at 2:33 AM, Justin Shore wrote:
Exactly. These days MPLS/VPNs is as much a DC feature as basic switching.
Our DC couldn't operate with MPLS/VPNs.
so some extent it depends on exactly how far 'down' into your DC you extend
MPLS VPNs.
for example, do you extend it down to the
Lincoln Dale wrote:
so some extent it depends on exactly how far 'down' into your DC you extend
MPLS VPNs.
for example, do you extend it down to the access layer?
or at what point do you map a MPLS VPN into a VRF or VLAN?
Our MPLS/VPNs stop above our top-of-rack L2 switches with VRFs mapped
On Nov 28, 2009, at 11:48 AM, Justin Shore wrote:
A 65/7600 with IPSec SPAs, FWSMs 67xx 10G LCs feeding Nexus or 4900
top-of-rack switches would be such a solution.
Note that w/N7K, you get usable NetFlow, per-interface uRPF configuration, and
less ACL constraints, all of which are
Sent: Fri, November 27, 2009 10:03:45 PM
Subject: Re: [c-nsp] ASR1004 vs 7606(RSP720-CXL)
On Nov 28, 2009, at 11:48 AM, Justin Shore wrote:
A 65/7600 with IPSec SPAs, FWSMs 67xx 10G LCs feeding Nexus or 4900
top-of-rack switches would be such a solution.
Note that w/N7K, you get usable NetFlow
On Thu, 26 Nov 2009 09:32:37 +1000, you wrote:
If there's a 4 slot chassis in the 2nd generation then I could see
N7K and N5K / N4K as a possible end-to-end platform for L3/MPLS core,
L2/L3 aggregation, and L2 access. And it would all run the same
software !!!
Except, of cause, the N7K
Asbjorn Hojmark - Lists wrote:
On Thu, 26 Nov 2009 09:32:37 +1000, you wrote:
If there's a 4 slot chassis in the 2nd generation then I could see
N7K and N5K / N4K as a possible end-to-end platform for L3/MPLS core,
L2/L3 aggregation, and L2 access. And it would all run the same
software !!!
On Nov 26, 2009, at 9:45 PM, Julio Arruda wrote:
Is the N7K is a hard-coded-can't-change forwarding glue (EARL8 at that)
platform, TCAM based, hence the 'switch' term ?
It uses the EARL8 ASIC, yes, and it's considered a layer-3 switch. However,
the EARL8 does allow for considerably more
On 2009-11-26 14:45, Julio Arruda wrote:
I'm curious, what is the difference ? I remember the debate (bridge x
switch) in another generation...
Is the N7K is a hard-coded-can't-change forwarding glue (EARL8 at that)
platform, TCAM based, hence the 'switch' term ?
Or in the feature set
On 26/11/2009, at 10:17 PM, Asbjorn Hojmark wrote:
Also, Nexus is positioned for the DC, so there will always be lacking
features when compared to the SP platforms.
Yup, and that's exactly the scenario I was talking about. We run mpls/ip +
l2/l3 agg + l2 access for our DC networks and our
On 27/11/2009, at 12:14 AM, Asbjorn Hojmark - Lists wrote:
If there's a 4 slot chassis in the 2nd generation then I could see
N7K and N5K / N4K as a possible end-to-end platform for L3/MPLS core,
L2/L3 aggregation, and L2 access. And it would all run the same
software !!!
Except, of
On Fri, 27 Nov 2009 14:33:37 +1100, you wrote:
Except, of cause, the N7K doesn't currently do MPLS and won't for
another year, and when it does it will, as always, be released in
fases.
fast forward to now from Nexus first release and some of the functionality
enabled by Nexus and NX-OS are
On 2009-11-25 08:42, Gert Doering wrote:
We might see a Cisco 8200 appear, which is the same as 6500 and 7600,
but with a different EEPROM and yet another chassis colour. Supported
by a new BU, and all the new and fancy supervisor boards will only
support the 8200 (and the 6500, but only if
Hi,
On Wed, Nov 25, 2009 at 08:46:37PM +0100, ?ukasz Bromirski wrote:
The new EARL - EARL8 is already there - as the PFC for Nexus 7k. It will
also be the part of next-gen Sup 2T and DFCs for LCs in the 6500E.
Ah, so it will come to 6500, not to 7600. Heh!
(I wonder what IOS train will
On 2009-11-25 21:22, Gert Doering wrote:
- 6500/7600 split. They (the 7600 camp) get the fast CPU, we get the
reasonable 10G linecards (and got the 10G sup first).
Yeah. We all live in a material world. But the CPU on the MSFC4 on
Sup2T will be fast.
- confusing strategy regarding
Hi,
On Wed, Nov 25, 2009 at 09:30:23PM +0100, ?ukasz Bromirski wrote:
On 2009-11-25 21:22, Gert Doering wrote:
- 6500/7600 split. They (the 7600 camp) get the fast CPU, we get the
reasonable 10G linecards (and got the 10G sup first).
Yeah. We all live in a material world. But the
On Nov 25, 2009, at 3:51 PM, Gert Doering wrote:
- as a customer, you really can't trust Cisco to make reasonable
decisions (did I mention the BU split? and IOS and hardware support
pain?) - even Cisco's stock price sucks, so the usual argument but
it was good for the stock price!
On 26/11/2009, at 5:46 AM, Łukasz Bromirski wrote:
As for something for the next-gen - 8200... competitors would like 6500
to be dead soon, because after all those rants it still wins the deals,
it is still a platform of choice for technical not marketing reasons,
and it still, after so many
Hi,
On Thu, Nov 26, 2009 at 09:32:37AM +1000, David Hughes wrote:
If there's a 4 slot chassis in the 2nd generation then I could
see N7K and N5K / N4K as a possible end-to-end platform for L3/MPLS
core, L2/L3 aggregation, and L2 access. And it would all run the
same software !!! Pinch me -
Hi,
On Tue, Nov 24, 2009 at 08:58:27AM +0800, Mark Tinka wrote:
Hopefully, the next EARL will resolve these issues, but who
knows what other limitations it may have, when they may be
resolved, or if support will come both to the 6500 and 7600,
or just one of these?
We might see a Cisco
I am building out a new datacenter. The edge is going to consist of 2 routers.
Each device has a 10G interface connected to a different provider with a 1-2G
commit. I think comparing price and throughput, I be better off using
7606/RSP720-3CXL/WS-X6708-10GE vs ASR1004 with 10G-SRs(that cisco
On Tuesday 24 November 2009 05:20:17 am loui leaky wrote:
I read through the archives of the list and people have
some strong opinions against the 7606, especially
regarding netflow exports, but maybe that was related to
SUP720 issues. I don not plan to offer and services at
the edge of
32 matches
Mail list logo
