[f-nsp] mpls + bgp support on NI CES2K

[Jeff McAdams]

FWIW, I'm pretty sure neither the CES or CER are merchant silicon. In fact, I'm pretty sure the forwarding plane on these guys are FPGA based.

That being said, the CES does have less CAM than the CER does, sip that does limit scalability.  Otherwise the difference is in the licensing model in the control plane.

I'll also say, my message to vendors is consistently that software feature licenses are a negative mark when I'm considering gear. If Brocade/Foundry people are listening, please take this message back to your product management people.

Nick Hilliard <nick at foobar.org> wrote:

>On 12/05/2013 16:16, Erich Hohermuth wrote:
>> In my opinion you either buy a cer if you need mpls layer3 or a MLX. 
>> There are alot of caveats in the configuration and you have to read the 
>> documentation really carefully cause some features are not compatible. 
>> The hardware is really limited in terms of routing instances (vrf).
>
>I don't expect a box like this to scale infinitely.  It's merchant silicon
>and this comes with reasonably well understood scaling limitations (e.g.
>routing instances, port buffers, LAG hashing, etc) - that's the trade-off
>for getting the port cost down from what you'd otherwise pay for bigger
>iron.  It's just that as it stands, the box does not compete especially
>well with products from other vendors in terms of bang per buck.
>
>Nick
>
>_______________________________________________
>foundry-nsp mailing list
>foundry-nsp at puck.nether.net
>http://puck.nether.net/mailman/listinfo/foundry-nsp