[c-nsp] ME3400

[Eric Van Tol]

> -----Original Message-----
> From: cisco-nsp-bounces at puck.nether.net [mailto:cisco-nsp-
> bounces at puck.nether.net] On Behalf Of MKS
> Sent: Thursday, October 23, 2008 11:44 AM
> To: cisco-nsp at puck.nether.net
> Subject: [c-nsp] ME3400
>
> Hi does anyone have experience with ME3400 switches. How are the
> performing?
> What about the stability
>

We have about two dozen of these in our network, all models except the 24FX model.  We have no complaints whatsoever about their reliability - some have been up for almost 2 years.  In the entire time we've used them, I believe we've only had two failure issues pop up that caused a reboot.  First was an issue using BiDi SFPs whereby installing two BiDi SFPs into a ME3400-2CS that operated on the same wavelength caused the switch to reboot.  The second was an IP SLA bug that's since been resolved.

Our biggest complaint with these boxes is lack of future-proofing.  The lack of 10/100/1000 on the 24-port box is a letdown, as is the lack of any IPv6 support.  In addition, the QoS features appear robust in the marketing materials, but for *our purposes*, they are very lacking and highly restrictive.  Check out the output policy map guidelines:

http://www.cisco.com/en/US/docs/switches/metro/me3400/software/release/12.2_46_se/configuration/guide/swqos.html#wp1468424

On the plus side, they do support Multi-VRF (no MPLS), and all L3 protocols.  In addition to this, EEM, IP SLA, REP, Ethernet OAM/CFM, and TDR, which are all good features for ME equipment.

If you're a startup trying to deploy very basic Metro Ethernet services, this is a good, solid box.  We've since made the decision to switch on a case-by-case basis from the ME3400s due to the aforementioned problems, but depending on your deployment plans and service capabilities, I'd recommend this switch.  The 2CS is a GREAT ethernet demarcation device, that will likely be cheaper than something like an EtherNID, depending on your discount with Cisco.

-evt