Re: OT: Cisco NEXUS 7k vs Catalyst 6509E

We went with F5 because we already had an F5 presence and it didn't make
financial sense. Also, we have a good knowledge base for the F5 as both
myself and my junior network guy have both training and experience with the
F5. This company tends to be a best of breed company so we stick with what
works in each technology space... so we're not always Cisco centric. For
example, we're getting ready to look at WAN optimization so we're going to
do a bake off between Riverbed, Cisco and probably Blue Coat.

Once we got the HP CNAs installed, they came up with minimal configuration
and we've had absolutely no problems out of them. Don't know what the real
difference is, the HP card is made by Emulex and, when you order them, they
are drop shipped from Emulex directly. But the HP card works and the Emulex
doesn't. Go figure.

On Thu, Aug 12, 2010 at 1:13 PM, Ryan West <rwest_at_zyedge.com> wrote:

>
>
>
>
> *From:* --Hammer-- [mailto:bhmccie_at_gmail.com]
> *Sent:* Thursday, August 12, 2010 2:10 PM
> *To:* Michael Marvel
> *Cc:* Ryan West; ccielab_at_groupstudy.com
>
> *Subject:* Re: OT: Cisco NEXUS 7k vs Catalyst 6509E
>
>
>
> Good stuff Michael. Thanks a lot. You didn't go with the 4710s for load
> balancing. Was the feature set not there? Just an observation that you
> trended away from Cisco for that component.
>
>
>
> --Hammer--
>
>
>
> Pardon my ignorance on the Cisco ACE, but what is their equivalent to
> iRules. With 10.x you can finally get a VRF like concept on the F5s with
> route domains, although you wouldnt get distinct layers of administrative
> control.
>
>
>
> -ryan

Blogs and organic groups at http://www.ccie.net
Received on Thu Aug 12 2010 - 13:43:31 ART