[c-nsp] Extreme vs. Cisco

[Drew Weaver]

-----Original Message-----
From: cisco-nsp-bounces at puck.nether.net
[mailto:cisco-nsp-bounces at puck.nether.net] On Behalf Of Mikael
Abrahamsson
Sent: Thursday, March 30, 2006 11:48 PM
To: cisco-nsp at puck.nether.net
Subject: Re: [c-nsp] Extreme vs. Cisco

On Thu, 30 Mar 2006, Drew Weaver wrote:

> 	I think you might be missing the point which is that
historically 
> extreme equipment performs nowhere near its stated performance 
> limitations. So whatever the stated performance was at the time that
we 
> bought a 6808 for $175,000 it wasn't able to meet that performance. 
> Whereas we have seen no difficulties in getting Cisco gear to do what
it 
> is stated it can do without really messing with it in any way.

This is not my experience. What part of the stated performance doesn't
the 
6808 meet?

Yes, cisco realised before other L3 switch vendors that you needed TCAM 
to do LPM routing and they should have full credit for this, the 3550 is

actually quite good as L3 device and we use it as that in some parts of 
the network, but we always have to keep ourselves within its
limitations, 
just as we do our Extremes. Just as an example, we use Extreme Summit
48si 
as what some would call BRAS and it works extremely well.

-- 
Mikael Abrahamsson    email: swmike at swm.pp.se
_______________________________________________
cisco-nsp mailing list  cisco-nsp at puck.nether.net
https://puck.nether.net/mailman/listinfo/cisco-nsp
archive at http://puck.nether.net/pipermail/cisco-nsp/