Mailing List Archive: nsp: foundry

FESX648 vs. NetIron CES 20204

Index | Next | Previous | View Threaded

QChen at corp

Feb 22, 2011, 1:41 PM

Post #1 of 9 (956 views)
Permalink

FESX648 vs. NetIron CES 20204

Does anyone have experience on NetIron CES? Is it stable enough to
compare with FESX? We are trying to make a decision on which one to
choose.

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

webnetwiz at gmail

Feb 22, 2011, 2:13 PM

Post #2 of 9 (924 views)
Permalink

Re: FESX648 vs. NetIron CES 20204 [In reply to]

NetIron is the way to go. It's a newer platform that runs software that
powers the bigger switches like MLX and XMR. More features, more memory, and
smaller form-factor.

David

On Tue, Feb 22, 2011 at 1:41 PM, Chen, Qinxue <QChen [at] corp> wrote:

> Does anyone have experience on NetIron CES? Is it stable enough to
> compare with FESX? We are trying to make a decision on which one to
> choose.
>
> _______________________________________________
> foundry-nsp mailing list
> foundry-nsp [at] puck
> http://puck.nether.net/mailman/listinfo/foundry-nsp
>

georgeb at gmail

Feb 22, 2011, 8:10 PM

Post #3 of 9 (904 views)
Permalink

Re: FESX648 vs. NetIron CES 20204 [In reply to]

I would say that greatly depends on the application and design of the
network. What is the application?

On Tue, Feb 22, 2011 at 2:13 PM, David <webnetwiz [at] gmail> wrote:

> NetIron is the way to go. It's a newer platform that runs software that
> powers the bigger switches like MLX and XMR. More features, more memory, and
> smaller form-factor.
>
> David
>
>
> On Tue, Feb 22, 2011 at 1:41 PM, Chen, Qinxue <QChen [at] corp> wrote:
>
>> Does anyone have experience on NetIron CES? Is it stable enough to
>> compare with FESX? We are trying to make a decision on which one to
>> choose.
>>
>> _______________________________________________
>> foundry-nsp mailing list
>> foundry-nsp [at] puck
>> http://puck.nether.net/mailman/listinfo/foundry-nsp
>>
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> foundry-nsp mailing list
> foundry-nsp [at] puck
> http://puck.nether.net/mailman/listinfo/foundry-nsp
>

joelm at gofreewire

Feb 23, 2011, 10:59 AM

Post #4 of 9 (893 views)
Permalink

Re: FESX648 vs. NetIron CES 20204 [In reply to]

Yes, we had a substantial FESX network and last year swapped it out for a CES and XMR network. The FESX boxes worked well until pushed. Utilizing advanced features such as MRP, UDLD, OSPF, and BGP on them simultaneously showed their limitations. The CES uses dual CPUs, one for the linecard and one for the management processing, so it handles those advanced protocols much better. Our network is now far more stable than it was with the FESX equipment. Not to mention the expanded and improved feature support.

Joel Mulkey
CIO
Freewire Broadband
Direct: 503-616-2557 | Support: 503-614-8282
http://www.gofreewire.com
http://twitter.com/FreewireNetwork

On Feb 23, 2011, at 9:00 AM, foundry-nsp-request [at] puck wrote:
>
> Does anyone have experience on NetIron CES? Is it stable enough to
> compare with FESX? We are trying to make a decision on which one to
> choose.
>

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

QChen at corp

Feb 23, 2011, 11:26 AM

Post #5 of 9 (905 views)
Permalink

Re: FESX648 vs. NetIron CES 20204 [In reply to]

We only need basic routing + switching, IPv4+IPv6, vrrp, some ospf, no
BGP, no hidden limits on ACL +PBR (like FESX448 has 1024 acl lines
limit).

________________________________

From: George B. [mailto:georgeb [at] gmail]
Sent: Tuesday, February 22, 2011 8:11 PM
To: David
Cc: Chen, Qinxue; foundry-nsp [at] puck
Subject: Re: [f-nsp] FESX648 vs. NetIron CES 20204

I would say that greatly depends on the application and design of the
network. What is the application?

On Tue, Feb 22, 2011 at 2:13 PM, David <webnetwiz [at] gmail> wrote:

NetIron is the way to go. It's a newer platform that runs
software that powers the bigger switches like MLX and XMR. More
features, more memory, and smaller form-factor.

David

On Tue, Feb 22, 2011 at 1:41 PM, Chen, Qinxue
<QChen [at] corp> wrote:

Does anyone have experience on NetIron CES? Is it stable
enough to
compare with FESX? We are trying to make a decision on
which one to
choose.

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

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

QChen at corp

Feb 23, 2011, 12:11 PM

Post #6 of 9 (897 views)
Permalink

Re: FESX648 vs. NetIron CES 20204 [In reply to]

Thank you Joel. Do you see any limits on ACL+PBR for CES?

-Qinxue

-----Original Message-----
From: foundry-nsp-bounces [at] puck
[mailto:foundry-nsp-bounces [at] puck] On Behalf Of Joel Mulkey
Sent: Wednesday, February 23, 2011 10:59 AM
To: foundry-nsp [at] puck
Subject: Re: [f-nsp] FESX648 vs. NetIron CES 20204

Yes, we had a substantial FESX network and last year swapped it out for
a CES and XMR network. The FESX boxes worked well until pushed.
Utilizing advanced features such as MRP, UDLD, OSPF, and BGP on them
simultaneously showed their limitations. The CES uses dual CPUs, one for
the linecard and one for the management processing, so it handles those
advanced protocols much better. Our network is now far more stable than
it was with the FESX equipment. Not to mention the expanded and improved
feature support.

Joel Mulkey
CIO
Freewire Broadband
Direct: 503-616-2557 | Support: 503-614-8282 http://www.gofreewire.com
http://twitter.com/FreewireNetwork

On Feb 23, 2011, at 9:00 AM, foundry-nsp-request [at] puck wrote:
>
> Does anyone have experience on NetIron CES? Is it stable enough to
> compare with FESX? We are trying to make a decision on which one to
> choose.
>

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

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

joelm at gofreewire

Feb 23, 2011, 3:22 PM

Post #7 of 9 (901 views)
Permalink

Re: FESX648 vs. NetIron CES 20204 [In reply to]

We are not using PBR, but we do use L2 and L3 ACLs (L2 extensively) and everything has worked as outlined in the config guide. The CES/XMR platform is far better than the FESX platform when it comes to combining features. For us this means that we can now rate limit, modify prioritization, and perform other functions on a single port, where with the FESX we had to pick and choose because we could not use features simultaneously on a port.

Joel Mulkey
CIO
Freewire Broadband
Direct: 503-616-2557 | Support: 503-614-8282
http://www.gofreewire.com
http://twitter.com/FreewireNetwork

On Feb 23, 2011, at 12:11 PM, Chen, Qinxue wrote:

> Thank you Joel. Do you see any limits on ACL+PBR for CES?
>
> -Qinxue
>
> -----Original Message-----
> From: foundry-nsp-bounces [at] puck
> [mailto:foundry-nsp-bounces [at] puck] On Behalf Of Joel Mulkey
> Sent: Wednesday, February 23, 2011 10:59 AM
> To: foundry-nsp [at] puck
> Subject: Re: [f-nsp] FESX648 vs. NetIron CES 20204
>
> Yes, we had a substantial FESX network and last year swapped it out for
> a CES and XMR network. The FESX boxes worked well until pushed.
> Utilizing advanced features such as MRP, UDLD, OSPF, and BGP on them
> simultaneously showed their limitations. The CES uses dual CPUs, one for
> the linecard and one for the management processing, so it handles those
> advanced protocols much better. Our network is now far more stable than
> it was with the FESX equipment. Not to mention the expanded and improved
> feature support.
>
> Joel Mulkey
> CIO
> Freewire Broadband
> Direct: 503-616-2557 | Support: 503-614-8282 http://www.gofreewire.com
> http://twitter.com/FreewireNetwork
>
> On Feb 23, 2011, at 9:00 AM, foundry-nsp-request [at] puck wrote:
>>
>> Does anyone have experience on NetIron CES? Is it stable enough to
>> compare with FESX? We are trying to make a decision on which one to
>> choose.
>>
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> foundry-nsp mailing list
> foundry-nsp [at] puck
> http://puck.nether.net/mailman/listinfo/foundry-nsp

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

keegan.holley at sungard

Feb 23, 2011, 3:43 PM

Post #8 of 9 (903 views)
Permalink

Re: FESX648 vs. NetIron CES 20204 [In reply to]

If you're using FESX's today and you like them I'd say yes, as others have
said the FESX is fine until you start using advanced features. I believe
the FESX is going end of life in a few years and the CES/CER's are going to
replace it. It's a much more capable switch as others have said as well.
Are you going to run any protocols on them or just generic switching?

On Tue, Feb 22, 2011 at 4:41 PM, Chen, Qinxue <QChen [at] corp> wrote:

> Does anyone have experience on NetIron CES? Is it stable enough to
> compare with FESX? We are trying to make a decision on which one to
> choose.
>
> _______________________________________________
> foundry-nsp mailing list
> foundry-nsp [at] puck
> http://puck.nether.net/mailman/listinfo/foundry-nsp
>
>

georgeb at gmail

Feb 23, 2011, 9:48 PM

Post #9 of 9 (903 views)
Permalink

Re: FESX648 vs. NetIron CES 20204 [In reply to]

The FCX is another alternative.

On Wed, Feb 23, 2011 at 11:26 AM, Chen, Qinxue <QChen [at] corp> wrote:

> We only need basic routing + switching, IPv4+IPv6, vrrp, some ospf, no
> BGP, no hidden limits on ACL +PBR (like FESX448 has 1024 acl lines limit).
>
> ------------------------------
> *From:* George B. [mailto:georgeb [at] gmail]
> *Sent:* Tuesday, February 22, 2011 8:11 PM
> *To:* David
> *Cc:* Chen, Qinxue; foundry-nsp [at] puck
> *Subject:* Re: [f-nsp] FESX648 vs. NetIron CES 20204
>
> I would say that greatly depends on the application and design of the
> network. What is the application?
>
>
>
> On Tue, Feb 22, 2011 at 2:13 PM, David <webnetwiz [at] gmail> wrote:
>
>> NetIron is the way to go. It's a newer platform that runs software that
>> powers the bigger switches like MLX and XMR. More features, more memory, and
>> smaller form-factor.
>>
>> David
>>
>>
>> On Tue, Feb 22, 2011 at 1:41 PM, Chen, Qinxue <QChen [at] corp>wrote:
>>
>>> Does anyone have experience on NetIron CES? Is it stable enough to
>>> compare with FESX? We are trying to make a decision on which one to
>>> choose.
>>>
>>> _______________________________________________
>>> foundry-nsp mailing list
>>> foundry-nsp [at] puck
>>> http://puck.nether.net/mailman/listinfo/foundry-nsp
>>>
>>
>>
>> _______________________________________________
>> foundry-nsp mailing list
>> foundry-nsp [at] puck
>> http://puck.nether.net/mailman/listinfo/foundry-nsp
>>
>
>

Index | Next | Previous | View Threaded

Interested in having your list archived? Contact Gossamer Threads