On Mon, Aug 25, 2008 at 7:20 PM, Jo Rhett <jrhett@netconsonance.com> wrote:
http://www.eantc.de/en/test_reports_presentations/test_reports/force_10_sfm_...
http://www.eantc.com/fileadmin/eantc/downloads/test_reports/2006-2008/Cisco-...
http://www.eantc.com/fileadmin/eantc/downloads/test_reports/2006-2008/Cisco-...
Did you read these?
Yes.
They appear to be nonsense. They were bought and paid for by Cisco, and including nonsense things like "if you leave a slot open the chassis will burn up" as a decrement, which is also true in pretty much every big iron vendor.
Current-generation Cisco and Juniper hardware don't seem to have this problem. I don't think the "remove one SFM and all the others go offline" failure mode is commonplace among other vendors either.
They also deliberately detuned the force10 configuration. They re-ran the tests using the recommended configuration and got very different numbers -- which you can request from them, but they won't publish on the website.
I'd be interested in seeing this. Mind putting them up somewhere and sharing the URL?
Based on what? For E and C series boxes, Cisco is never cheaper. S-series are a different story.
I was comparing list pricing for the E-series up against Catalyst 6500, Supervisor 720-3BXL, 6700 blades with CFC... which I consider a fair comparison.
As a box designed with the enterprise datacenter in mind, the E-series looks to be missing several key service provider features, including MPLS and advanced control plane filtering/policing.
Ah, because Cisco does either of these in hardware?
Yes, they do, on the s720-3B and better. Drive Slow, Paul Wall