Re: Force10 Gear - Opinions

["Paul Wall" <pauldotwall () gmail com>]

On Mon, Aug 25, 2008 at 7:20 PM, Jo Rhett <jrhett () netconsonance com> wrote:
> > http://www.eantc.de/en/test_reports_presentations/test_reports/force_10_sfm_failover_video_ftos_6211.html
> >
> >
> > http://www.eantc.com/fileadmin/eantc/downloads/test_reports/2006-2008/Cisco-Force10/EANTC_Full_Report.pdf
> >
> >
> > http://www.eantc.com/fileadmin/eantc/downloads/test_reports/2006-2008/Cisco-Force10/Section_8.pdf
>
> Did you read these?

Yes.

> 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.

Current-generation Cisco and Juniper hardware don't seem to have this problem.

I don't think the "remove one SFM and all the others go offline"
failure mode is commonplace among other vendors either.

> They also deliberately detuned the force10
> configuration.  They re-ran the tests using the recommended configuration
> and got very different numbers -- which you can request from them, but they
> won't publish on the website.

I'd be interested in seeing this.  Mind putting them up somewhere and
sharing the URL?

> Based on what?  For E and C series boxes, Cisco is never cheaper.  S-series
> are a different story.

I was comparing list pricing for the E-series up against Catalyst
6500, Supervisor 720-3BXL, 6700 blades with CFC... which I consider a
fair comparison.

> > 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, they do, on the s720-3B and better.

Drive Slow,
Paul Wall