Login | Register For Free | Help
Search for: (Advanced)

Mailing List Archive: nsp: force10

experience with Force10 E300

 

 

nsp force10 RSS feed   Index | Next | Previous | View Threaded


jchome at jc-ix

Jun 9, 2010, 4:15 AM

Post #1 of 4 (2858 views)
Permalink
experience with Force10 E300

Hi,

I'm looking forward to use the E300 as a BGP peering platform and I'm
wondering if someone already did that and maybe has some experiences to
share with me. Some sales guys and technicians told me "it's not mature
enough to do that!" - but I want a somewhat second opinion.

Rants and Praises welcome. :)

Cheers,
Frederic Jaeckel
Network Operator
_______________________________________________
force10-nsp mailing list
force10-nsp [at] puck
https://puck.nether.net/mailman/listinfo/force10-nsp


niels=force10-nsp at bakker

Jun 9, 2010, 6:05 AM

Post #2 of 4 (2704 views)
Permalink
Re: experience with Force10 E300 [In reply to]

* jchome [at] jc-ix (Frederic Jaeckel) [Wed 09 Jun 2010, 13:52 CEST]:
> I'm looking forward to use the E300 as a BGP peering platform and
> I'm wondering if someone already did that and maybe has some
> experiences to share with me. Some sales guys and technicians told
> me "it's not mature enough to do that!" - but I want a somewhat
> second opinion.

I have, it worked fine. Like with every hybrid L2/L3 device on the
market today, make sure you have enough CAM on your linecards to suit
your purposes.


-- Niels.

--
_______________________________________________
force10-nsp mailing list
force10-nsp [at] puck
https://puck.nether.net/mailman/listinfo/force10-nsp


jrhett at netconsonance

Jun 9, 2010, 4:20 PM

Post #3 of 4 (2705 views)
Permalink
Re: experience with Force10 E300 [In reply to]

On Jun 9, 2010, at 4:15 AM, Frederic Jaeckel wrote:
> I'm looking forward to use the E300 as a BGP peering platform and I'm
> wondering if someone already did that and maybe has some experiences to
> share with me. Some sales guys and technicians told me "it's not mature
> enough to do that!" - but I want a somewhat second opinion.

The "not mature" comment referred to the 6.x code. It wasn't ready until 7.4 shipped, but has been fairly solid since then. (~3 years ago)

At $FORMER_EMPLOYER we deployed them and they worked very well until the CAMs filled up late last year. F10 promised us adjustable CAM profiles but never delivered. The Dual-CAM cards only provide a fairly short lifetime based on post-exhaustion IP table growth, and for some wierd reason the Quad-CAM cards didn't double the IPv4 tables, but only provided 120% of what you get in a dual-cam card.

$FORMER_EMPLOYER took this as a hint that F10 didn't have the resources to chase both the fast-switching market and the IP Provider market, and had chosen to drop the service providers.

If you don't believe that IPv4 tables will break 600k prefixes before planned obsolescence in your environment, I believe that are a solid platform at a good price point.

If you want a platform without those limitations (and already supports millions of prefixes) look at the Juniper MX platform.

--
Jo Rhett
Net Consonance : consonant endings by net philanthropy, open source and other randomness


_______________________________________________
force10-nsp mailing list
force10-nsp [at] puck
https://puck.nether.net/mailman/listinfo/force10-nsp


jasondearborn at gmail

Jun 18, 2010, 3:36 PM

Post #4 of 4 (2676 views)
Permalink
Re: experience with Force10 E300 [In reply to]

A quick note on the E300 and Terascale product route capacity. Single-cam
linecards support 256k ipv4 routes. Dual-cam cards support 512k routes. The
newer Exascale chassis scale up to 688k v4 routes.

Full disclosure: I am a Force10 employee.

nsp force10 RSS feed   Index | Next | Previous | View Threaded
 
 


Interested in having your list archived? Contact Gossamer Threads
 
  Web Applications & Managed Hosting Powered by Gossamer Threads Inc.