[c-nsp] Cisco Switch Portfolio Miss

[Oliver Garraux]

FYI, I believe the 5600 is effectively the new name for the 6001.  I think
there may be some minor technical differences between them, but from my
understanding Cisco's marketing group changed their mind about the naming
convention right after releasing the 6001.  I think they want stuff with
6000 series numbers to be 40G based platforms.

Oliver

-------------------------------------

Oliver Garraux
Check out my blog:  blog.garraux.net
Follow me on Twitter:  twitter.com/olivergarraux


On Fri, Apr 11, 2014 at 11:05 AM, Ulrik Ivers <ulrik.ivers at excanto.se>wrote:

> We've deployed a pair of Nexus 6001 as a L2/L3 Aggregation in a
> multi-tenant DC.
>
> The Nexus 6001 runs vPC and HSRP for redundancy and multiple VRFs. They
> are then connected to a pair of ASR9Ks. OSPF between Nexus 6001 and ASR.
>
> So far we're very happy with the setup
>
> /Ulrik Ivers
>
> -----Original Message-----
> From: cisco-nsp [mailto:cisco-nsp-bounces at puck.nether.net] On Behalf Of
> Antoine Monnier
> Sent: den 11 april 2014 16:02
> To: Gert Doering; Pete Templin; cisco-nsp at puck.nether.net
> Subject: Re: [c-nsp] Cisco Switch Portfolio Miss
>
> Hi list,
>
> 6 months later, any additional feedback on those Nexus 3000 or 6001 box?
> Anyone has experience with the newer Nexus 3100/5600 ? (are they even
> shipping?)
>
> We are looking at different options for a small DC setup and were
> wondering on the maturity of those different products.
>
>
> Cheers
>
> Antoine
>
> On Fri, Sep 13, 2013 at 12:57 PM, Gert Doering <gert at greenie.muc.de>
> wrote:
>
> > Hi,
> >
> > On Thu, Sep 12, 2013 at 08:15:01PM -0700, Pete Templin wrote:
> > > On 9/12/13 11:30 AM, Gert Doering wrote:
> > >
> > > >To be fair, one would need to compare software features - so what
> > > >does the N3K do?  L2 only?  L3, with how many routes?  IPv6, MPLS?
> > >
> > > Gert, you don't want to explore the N3K, you'll have 6500 heartburn
> > > all over again.  URPF halves the route table size, max 16k routes
> > > (but v6 routes count double), a separate memory space for host
> > > routes, very limited ACL TCAM and it has to be carved up for v4/v6 at
> boot time.
> >
> > Yay.
> >
> > But I wouldn't want to use that as a "core router", more like "a
> > switch with lots of 10GE ports, and maybe some functionality for doing
> > EoMPLS across datacenters or such" - so "a few 100 IPv4/IPv6 routes"
> > would be plenty for that role.  Like the Extreme thingies, but with a
> > less confusing CLI :-)
> >
> > > NXOS for this platform seems very buggy, so one might end up doing
> > > endless code upgrades to get past showstopper bugs, only to
> > > encounter more bugs in the next build.
> >
> > I'm not particularily surprised, but that's not encouraging either...
> > :-/
> >
> > gert
> >
> > --
> > USENET is *not* the non-clickable part of WWW!
> >                                                            //
> > www.muc.de/~gert/ Gert Doering - Munich, Germany gert at greenie.muc.de
> > fax: +49-89-35655025
> > gert at net.informatik.tu-muenchen.de
> >
> > _______________________________________________
> > 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/
> >
> _______________________________________________
> 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/
>
> _______________________________________________
> 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/
>