[f-nsp] FESX648 vs. NetIron CES 20204

[George B.]

The FCX is another alternative.


On Wed, Feb 23, 2011 at 11:26 AM, Chen, Qinxue <QChen at corp.untd.com> wrote:

>  We only need basic routing + switching, IPv4+IPv6, vrrp, some ospf, no
> BGP, no hidden limits on ACL +PBR (like FESX448 has 1024 acl lines limit).
>
>  ------------------------------
> *From:* George B. [mailto:georgeb at gmail.com]
> *Sent:* Tuesday, February 22, 2011 8:11 PM
> *To:* David
> *Cc:* Chen, Qinxue; foundry-nsp at puck.nether.net
> *Subject:* Re: [f-nsp] FESX648 vs. NetIron CES 20204
>
> I would say that greatly depends on the application and design of the
> network.  What is the application?
>
>
>
> On Tue, Feb 22, 2011 at 2:13 PM, David <webnetwiz at gmail.com> wrote:
>
>> NetIron is the way to go. It's a newer platform that runs software that
>> powers the bigger switches like MLX and XMR. More features, more memory, and
>> smaller form-factor.
>>
>> David
>>
>>
>> On Tue, Feb 22, 2011 at 1:41 PM, Chen, Qinxue <QChen at corp.untd.com>wrote:
>>
>>> Does anyone have experience on NetIron CES? Is it stable enough to
>>> compare with FESX? We are trying to make a decision on which one to
>>> choose.
>>>
>>> _______________________________________________
>>> foundry-nsp mailing list
>>> foundry-nsp at puck.nether.net
>>> http://puck.nether.net/mailman/listinfo/foundry-nsp
>>>
>>
>>
>> _______________________________________________
>> foundry-nsp mailing list
>> foundry-nsp at puck.nether.net
>> http://puck.nether.net/mailman/listinfo/foundry-nsp
>>
>
>
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <https://puck.nether.net/pipermail/foundry-nsp/attachments/20110223/af4dbf49/attachment.html>