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

Very cool. Thank you Michael.

--Hammer--

On 8/12/2010 1:43 PM, Michael Marvel wrote:
> 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
> <mailto:rwest_at_zyedge.com>> wrote:
>
> *From:* --Hammer-- [mailto:bhmccie_at_gmail.com
> <mailto:bhmccie_at_gmail.com>]
> *Sent:* Thursday, August 12, 2010 2:10 PM
> *To:* Michael Marvel
> *Cc:* Ryan West; ccielab_at_groupstudy.com
> <mailto: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 - 13:47:25 ART