[c-nsp] SUP720's memory, looking at options..

Gert Doering gert at greenie.muc.de
Fri Jul 8 02:43:03 EDT 2016


On Thu, Jul 07, 2016 at 02:05:55PM -0700, Peter Kranz wrote:
> Ah.. I've not been able to convince myself that the port density hit on the
> 9k was worth it yet. 
> Since the nexus 77k supports 2M IPv4 routes in its FIB and has pretty epic
> density, we are trying to figure out what that would be a bad choice.

Well, our stance on Nexus is "it's a BU that is totally decoupled from 
all the other BUs, so we could as well just use a different vendor".

... and if Nexus actually wins after comparing to what other vendors 
have to offer (and we've not seen anything to convince us), bring it in
as you would do any other new vendor: lots of labbing, training expenses,

For us, we did not find *any* reason to choose Nexus.  For L2 switching
with high port densities we went to Juniper EX series instead...


USENET is *not* the non-clickable part of WWW!
Gert Doering - Munich, Germany                             gert at greenie.muc.de
fax: +49-89-35655025                        gert at net.informatik.tu-muenchen.de
-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: signature.asc
Type: application/pgp-signature
Size: 291 bytes
Desc: not available
URL: <https://puck.nether.net/pipermail/cisco-nsp/attachments/20160708/3a600740/attachment.sig>

More information about the cisco-nsp mailing list