On Sep 5, 2008, at 12:37 PM, Paul Wall wrote:
Jo Rhett wrote:
Note the not random comment. People love to use the random
feature of ixia/etc but it rarely displays
actual performance in a production network.
Once upon a time, vendors released products which relied on CPU-based
flow setup.
Paul Wall wrote:
On Wed, Sep 3, 2008 at 8:29 PM, Jo Rhett [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
On Aug 26, 2008, at 12:26 AM, Paul Wall wrote:
Routing n*GE at line rate isn't difficult these days, even with all
64-byte packets and other DoS conditions.
Linksys, D-Link, SMC, etc are able to pull it off on
On Wed, Sep 3, 2008 at 8:28 PM, Jo Rhett [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
For equivalent redundancy and ports, the Force10 is always cheaper - even
just in list price. (on the E-series -- Cisco has some cheaper options than
the S-series so I've heard - don't care)
Some food for thought, comparing
On Thursday 04 September 2008 15:47:01 Paul Wall wrote:
uRPF strict as a configuration default, on customers
without possible asymmetry (multihoming, one-way
tunneling, etc) is not a bad default. But when the
customers increase in complexity, the time might come to
relax things some. It's
Paul Wall wrote:
Please realize that the above is list vs. list. Cisco 6500 series
hardware is extremely popular in the secondary market, with discounts
of 80% or greater on linecards, etc common, furthering the argument
that Cisco is the cheaper of the two solutions.
Secondary market
uRPF strict as a configuration default, on customers without possible
asymmetry (multihoming, one-way tunneling, etc) is not a bad default.
But when the customers increase in complexity, the time might come to
relax things some. It's certainly not a be-all-end-all. And it's
been
On Sep 3, 2008, at 8:45 PM, Paul Wall wrote:
Linksys, D-Link, SMC, etc are able to pull it off on the layer 3
switches sold at Fry's for a couple benjamins a pop. :)
I am. All of these boxes can forward packets at line rate, and list
for a fraction of the price of the Force 10 S-Series.
On Thu, Sep 4, 2008 at 12:36 PM, Jo Rhett [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Linksys, D-Link, SMC, etc are able to pull it off on the layer 3
switches sold at Fry's for a couple benjamins a pop. :)
I am. All of these boxes can forward packets at line rate, and list
for a fraction of the price of the
On Thu, Sep 4, 2008 at 12:40 PM, Jo Rhett [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
You added a third SFM3 which has no place to go in this chassis.
No, I did not. I did, however, list it as a point of reference for
a-la-carte analysis.
So $52,500 versus $62,240 for the Cisco.
No, $65000.00 vs $62240.00.
On Sep 4, 2008, at 10:03 AM, Paul Wall wrote:
You and I (and any real network operator) must have different
definitions of
forward at line rate.
forwards a gig-e full of 64 byte packets, random src/dst, when you
hook a smartbits/ixia up to it is mine. What's yours?
Forwards a mixed bag
On Sep 4, 2008, at 10:07 AM, Paul Wall wrote:
On Thu, Sep 4, 2008 at 12:40 PM, Jo Rhett [EMAIL PROTECTED]
wrote:
You added a third SFM3 which has no place to go in this chassis.
No, I did not. I did, however, list it as a point of reference for
a-la-carte analysis.
So $52,500 versus
And 60 points off Cisco is possible, even for small shops with some
negotiating ability.
That's not our experience; it seems that BUs protecting margins talk
louder than the sales guys, so when it reaches discounts like that,
even because of lack of adequate product from Cisco (lower gear
I've recently seen Cisco, loose an approx ~$1MM deal at an all Cisco
shop to Force10 Cisco wouldn't better mid 40's discount.
On Thu, Sep 4, 2008 at 2:23 PM, Rubens Kuhl Jr. [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
And 60 points off Cisco is possible, even for small shops with some
negotiating ability.
On Aug 25, 2008, at 8:29 PM, James Jun wrote:
As a box designed with the enterprise datacenter in mind, the E-
series
looks to be missing several key service provider features, including
MPLS and advanced control plane filtering/policing.
Ah, because Cisco does either of these in hardware?
On Aug 26, 2008, at 12:18 AM, Paul Wall wrote:
They appear to be nonsense. They were bought and paid
for by Cisco, and including nonsense things like if you leave a
slot open
the chassis will burn up as a decrement, which is also true in
pretty much
every big iron vendor.
On Aug 26, 2008, at 12:26 AM, Paul Wall wrote:
Routing n*GE at line rate isn't difficult these days, even with all
64-byte packets and other DoS conditions.
Linksys, D-Link, SMC, etc are able to pull it off on the layer 3
switches sold at Fry's for a couple benjamins a pop. :)
Sorry, I
Yes. PFC3 inside Supervisor 32, 720 and RSP 720 for Catalyst 6500/
Router
7600 series perform both of these features in hardware. The article
mentioned in this thread compares Force10 E against the 6500 series.
Sorry, I was on an installation with 6500s and 720s trying to do uRPF
On Aug 26, 2008, at 9:46 AM, Owen DeLong wrote:
Bottom line, in a few years, everyone carrying full tables with F10
gear will probably need to
upgrade all of their line cards to quad-cam.
Why is this statement being limited to F10?
It appears to be true of every vendor.
But why quad-cam?
On Aug 31, 2008, at 11:19 PM, Greg VILLAIN wrote:
What I also used to dislike is the lack of verbosity of 'show
features' - but that was back a year ago.
Much improved in the last 2 years.
Btw, you absolutely want to avoid the S series, the CLI is a pain,
and is not the same as the E or C
On Sep 3, 2008, at 5:30 PM, James Jun wrote:
uRPF was problematic back in PFC2 based platforms (i.e. SUP2) where
it is
further dependent upon unicast routes in FIB TCAM.
uRPF was untenable on SUP2, not problematic. It wasn't possible
above ... 3mb/sec?
Guys, this isn't SOHO routing
On Wed, Sep 3, 2008 at 5:38 PM, jim deleskie [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
This is an awesome thread... in the 18mts I tested F10 vs Juniper vs
Cisco I need see my Cisco sales rep push this hard :)
it's easy to push this hard when you have empirical evidence on your side
but seriously, this is
This statement is patently false. The uRPF failures I dealt with were based
entirely on the recommended settings, and were confirmed by Cisco. Last I
heard (2 months ago) the problems remain. Cisco just isn't being honest
with you about them.
Would you mind telling us what is the scenario
On Wed, Sep 3, 2008 at 8:29 PM, Jo Rhett [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
On Aug 26, 2008, at 12:26 AM, Paul Wall wrote:
Routing n*GE at line rate isn't difficult these days, even with all
64-byte packets and other DoS conditions.
Linksys, D-Link, SMC, etc are able to pull it off on the layer 3
On Sep 3, 2008, at 8:36 PM, Jo Rhett wrote:
That's one hell of a caveot, given that you always want strict on
your customers and loose on your transit links.
Personally I have always avoided combining customers and transit
providers on the same routers in ISP environments.
Brian
On Aug 26, 2008, at 6:46 PM, Owen DeLong wrote:
Another thing to note (as near as I can tell, this applies to all
vendors). All line cards will function
only at the lowest common denominator line card CAM level.
IOW, if you have single, dual, and quad-cam cards in your F10
chassis,
Sort of... There are still some notable differences in behavior.
Owen
On Sep 1, 2008, at 5:47 AM, jim deleskie wrote:
The S series runs the same FTOS as the C and E series, as of a number
of months ago. The only exception is the 2410, ie all 10G ports L2
only.
-jim
On Mon, Sep 1, 2008 at
On Mon, Aug 25, 2008 at 7:26 PM, Jo Rhett [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
1) Reliability
Very good. Across our entire business we've lost 1 RPM module in ~2 years.
How many boxes in total? Losing a single routing engine in two years
is not a bad MTBF, though I wonder if we're talking about
Then again, I've always had a good support experience with Extreme,
but I'm not about to run out and replace my core with Black Diamonds.
:)
I once worked at a place where we had BD 6808's at the core; one of them
consistently had hardware issues, and it took me the better part of a year
of
On Tue, 26 Aug 2008, Chris Riling wrote:
I once worked at a place where we had BD 6808's at the core; one of them
consistently had hardware issues, and it took me the better part of a
year of fighting with Extreme to get them to replace the chassis, but
when they did, the problems went away,
Paul Wall wrote:
On Fri, Aug 22, 2008 at 10:34 AM, Matlock, Kenneth L
[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Does anyone here have real-world experience with Force 10 gear
(Specifically their E-Series and C-Series)? They came and did their
whole dog and pony show today, but I wanted to get real-world
On Aug 23, 2008, at 10:52 PM, Paul Wall wrote:
EANTC did a comprehensive study of the E-series:
http://www.eantc.de/en/test_reports_presentations/test_reports/force_10_sfm_failover_video_ftos_6211.html
On Aug 22, 2008, at 7:34 AM, Matlock, Kenneth L wrote:
1) Reliability
Very good. Across our entire business we've lost 1 RPM module in ~2
years.
2) Performance
[Note: we have no 10g interfaces, so I can only speak to a many-
singleg-port environment]
Much higher than
2) Performance
[Note: we have no 10g interfaces, so I can only speak to a many-singleg-port
environment]
Much higher than Cisco. So good at dealing with traffic problems that we
have had multi-gig DoS attacks that we wouldn't have known about without
having an IDS running on a
As a box designed with the enterprise datacenter in mind, the E-
series
looks to be missing several key service provider features, including
MPLS and advanced control plane filtering/policing.
Ah, because Cisco does either of these in hardware?
Yes. PFC3 inside Supervisor 32, 720
Subject: Force10 Gear - Opinions
Does anyone here have real-world experience with Force 10 gear
(Specifically their E-Series and C-Series)? They came and did their
whole dog and pony show today, but I wanted to get real-world feedback
on their gear.
I was at a customer site doing a NAC
On Fri, Aug 22, 2008 at 10:34 AM, Matlock, Kenneth L
[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Sorry for the off-topic post.
Don't be; it was acutely on-topic.
Does anyone here have real-world experience with Force 10 gear
(Specifically their E-Series and C-Series)? They came and did their
whole dog and pony
On Fri, Aug 22, 2008 at 08:34:05AM -0600, Matlock, Kenneth L wrote:
Sorry for the off-topic post.
Does anyone here have real-world experience with Force 10 gear
(Specifically their E-Series and C-Series)? They came and did their
whole dog and pony show today, but I wanted to get real-world
37 matches
Mail list logo
