keith at pando
Feb 16, 2006, 1:38 PM
Post #3 of 3
(2136 views)
Permalink
|
My curiosity with the layer 3 features is only for a testing enviroment
for our QA department. We do not want to shell out a full blown
production enviroment for them, but if I can take a few S50s and
configure them close to our production enviroment it would be helpful.
We currently use the E300 as a router and some switching but will be
migrating most of the switching to stacked S50s hanging off the E300s
with 4 port LAGs.
Any thoughts?
Keith
David Diaz wrote:
>My bad I meant to say 2.3.1
>I have not hammered the layer3 extra. Frankly Im always of the
>philosophy of letting routers ROUTE and switches SWITCH. Although
>force10 has done an great job of routing on their other series. I
>would not try doing a bunch of full route BGP tables on this box but
>that was not what it was made for.
>
>Everyone says the same thing about the CLI. They have gotten it into a
>few hands early to get feedback and now have the new CLI coming out.
>Everyone is looking forward to it. I am hoping for a smooth transition
>but we had some concern about reloading the config. I think that was
>only if you are prior to 2.1.5. Any feedback???
>
>People say it beats cisco but what are people's thoughts comparing
>this box to Extreme boxes?
>
>
>On 2/16/06, keith <keith at pando.com> wrote:
>
>
>>According to Force10 ver 2.3.1 should be out next week for the S50. Im
>>really excited about this cause it is supposed to be a major upgrade to
>>the CLI. I have had the 2 S50s on my desk for testing the past few days
>>and Im quite impressed from a hardware standpoint. The stacking on these
>>box's is pretty amazing and so far it has been a much better experience
>>than from Cisco Catalyst switches. My only complaint would be the CLI
>>which is not even close to FTOS for the E series. Anyone else have any
>>other thoughts?
>>
>>Currently I have only layer 2 enabled OS, has anyone used these with
>>Layer 3 enabled and what is your opinion on it?
>>
>>
>>force10-nsp-request at puck.nether.net wrote:
>>
>>
>>
>>>Send force10-nsp mailing list submissions to
>>> force10-nsp at puck.nether.net
>>>
>>>To subscribe or unsubscribe via the World Wide Web, visit
>>> https://puck.nether.net/mailman/listinfo/force10-nsp
>>>or, via email, send a message with subject or body 'help' to
>>> force10-nsp-request at puck.nether.net
>>>
>>>You can reach the person managing the list at
>>> force10-nsp-owner at puck.nether.net
>>>
>>>When replying, please edit your Subject line so it is more specific
>>>than "Re: Contents of force10-nsp digest..."
>>>
>>>
>>>Today's Topics:
>>>
>>> 1. S50s (David Diaz)
>>> 2. Re: S50s (Panny Malialis)
>>> 3. Re: S50s (David Diaz)
>>> 4. Re: S50s (Andy Myers)
>>> 5. Re: S50s (David Diaz)
>>>
>>>
>>>----------------------------------------------------------------------
>>>
>>>Message: 1
>>>Date: Wed, 15 Feb 2006 21:37:20 -0500
>>>From: David Diaz <davediaz.tech at gmail.com>
>>>Subject: [F10-nsp] S50s
>>>To: force10-nsp at puck.nether.net
>>>Message-ID:
>>> <f31b5e0b0602151837o41430bb1v66a0b5470abed577 at mail.gmail.com>
>>>Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1
>>>
>>>I heard someone was interested in some feedback on the S50s. I have
>>>been administrating a network of them and so far so good. I am about
>>>to try upgrading to the latest code in a week.
>>>
>>>Dave
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>------------------------------
>>>
>>>Message: 2
>>>Date: Thu, 16 Feb 2006 02:46:07 +0000
>>>From: Panny Malialis <panny at hotlinks.co.uk>
>>>Subject: Re: [F10-nsp] S50s
>>>To: David Diaz <davediaz.tech at gmail.com>
>>>Cc: force10-nsp at puck.nether.net
>>>Message-ID: <43F3E76F.6020400 at hotlinks.co.uk>
>>>Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1; format=flowed
>>>
>>>Yes, I'm particularly looking forward to the changes to the vlan config
>>>in the new version.
>>>
>>>No problems for us so far apart from 1 port on a 10GE card DOA which was
>>>replaced for us in lightning speed.
>>>
>>>Panny
>>>
>>>David Diaz wrote:
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>>I heard someone was interested in some feedback on the S50s. I have
>>>>been administrating a network of them and so far so good. I am about
>>>>to try upgrading to the latest code in a week.
>>>>
>>>>Dave
>>>>
>>>>_______________________________________________
>>>>force10-nsp mailing list
>>>>force10-nsp at puck.nether.net
>>>>https://puck.nether.net/mailman/listinfo/force10-nsp
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>
>>>------------------------------
>>>
>>>Message: 3
>>>Date: Wed, 15 Feb 2006 22:04:56 -0500
>>>From: David Diaz <davediaz.tech at gmail.com>
>>>Subject: Re: [F10-nsp] S50s
>>>To: Panny Malialis <panny at hotlinks.co.uk>
>>>Cc: force10-nsp at puck.nether.net
>>>Message-ID:
>>> <f31b5e0b0602151904x3cd1f18fwafc43d6e727fcdb3 at mail.gmail.com>
>>>Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1
>>>
>>>I saw a minor MTU problem on the LAGs but besides that it has be rock
>>>solid and I also found the support very good.
>>>
>>>On 2/15/06, Panny Malialis <panny at hotlinks.co.uk> wrote:
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>>Yes, I'm particularly looking forward to the changes to the vlan config
>>>>in the new version.
>>>>
>>>>No problems for us so far apart from 1 port on a 10GE card DOA which was
>>>>replaced for us in lightning speed.
>>>>
>>>>Panny
>>>>
>>>>David Diaz wrote:
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>>I heard someone was interested in some feedback on the S50s. I have
>>>>>been administrating a network of them and so far so good. I am about
>>>>>to try upgrading to the latest code in a week.
>>>>>
>>>>>Dave
>>>>>
>>>>>_______________________________________________
>>>>>force10-nsp mailing list
>>>>>force10-nsp at puck.nether.net
>>>>>https://puck.nether.net/mailman/listinfo/force10-nsp
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>
>>>------------------------------
>>>
>>>Message: 4
>>>Date: Thu, 16 Feb 2006 08:52:04 -0500
>>>From: Andy Myers <acm at dullroar.org>
>>>Subject: Re: [F10-nsp] S50s
>>>To: David Diaz <davediaz.tech at gmail.com>
>>>Cc: force10-nsp at puck.nether.net
>>>Message-ID: <1140097924.11232.15.camel at ti63>
>>>Content-Type: text/plain
>>>
>>>On Wed, 2006-02-15 at 22:04 -0500, David Diaz wrote:
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>>I saw a minor MTU problem on the LAGs but besides that it has be rock
>>>>solid and I also found the support very good.
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>Hi, I think I was the one who was originally asking about S50
>>>experience... We're planning to use LAGs too, so could you elaborate
>>>about what went wrong and how you fixed it?
>>>
>>>Thanks,
>>>Andy
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>------------------------------
>>>
>>>Message: 5
>>>Date: Thu, 16 Feb 2006 09:20:21 -0500
>>>From: David Diaz <davediaz.tech at gmail.com>
>>>Subject: Re: [F10-nsp] S50s
>>>To: Andy Myers <acm at dullroar.org>
>>>Cc: force10-nsp at puck.nether.net
>>>Message-ID:
>>> <f31b5e0b0602160620r6bb05f92re3062c992b355420 at mail.gmail.com>
>>>Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1
>>>
>>>ok there was a known issue with 2.1.5 (old code). On the backside XFPs
>>>(i think it was local to those) I created a LAG. If packets were sent
>>>through on the front side gig ports at the max size, and u did blan
>>>tagging and sent them over the lag (I think 4bits were added) the
>>>packets would be dropped. It was a very specific problem and it took
>>>all of about 15secs to adjust the max MTU size allowed on the lag. I
>>>believe adding a tag put another 4bits on and that pushed it over the
>>>default limit in some cases.
>>>
>>>2.1.6 corrected the limit be default. That is the single only problem
>>>I have run into and that was because I was an early adopter. The
>>>boxes have been hammered on and have stood up just fine. I am soon to
>>>try 2.2.1. I know the CLI syntax has changed a lot.
>>>
>>>As for crashes, reboots, phantom MAC addressing etc showing up, zip,
>>>and this has been an issue with other vendors. I would compare force10
>>>to juniper but just in the ethernet space.
>>>
>>>It would be interesting to see if anyone has stacked 8 units and
>>>banged on all 384 ports to see what kinda stats they produced.
>>>
>>>Oh the important issue with the bug, TAC verified and diagnosed it in
>>>about 10 seconds. We came up with a solution immediately that would
>>>require no interruption of services... non reboot.
>>>
>>>dave
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>On 2/16/06, Andy Myers <acm at dullroar.org> wrote:
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>>On Wed, 2006-02-15 at 22:04 -0500, David Diaz wrote:
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>>I saw a minor MTU problem on the LAGs but besides that it has be rock
>>>>>solid and I also found the support very good.
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>Hi, I think I was the one who was originally asking about S50
>>>>experience... We're planning to use LAGs too, so could you elaborate
>>>>about what went wrong and how you fixed it?
>>>>
>>>>Thanks,
>>>>Andy
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>
>>>------------------------------
>>>
>>>_______________________________________________
>>>force10-nsp mailing list
>>>force10-nsp at puck.nether.net
>>>https://puck.nether.net/mailman/listinfo/force10-nsp
>>>
>>>
>>>End of force10-nsp Digest, Vol 6, Issue 8
>>>*****************************************
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>_______________________________________________
>>force10-nsp mailing list
>>force10-nsp at puck.nether.net
>>https://puck.nether.net/mailman/listinfo/force10-nsp
>>
>>
>>
|
