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

Agreed.

--Hammer--

On 8/12/2010 1:45 PM, Michael Marvel wrote:
> The one feature we did really like when we looked at ACE was the
> virtualization. Unfortunately, the rest wasn't enough to unseat F5.
> We definately gave Cisco a chance though since we were talking about a
> greenfield data center.
>
> On Thu, Aug 12, 2010 at 1:35 PM, --Hammer-- <bhmccie_at_gmail.com
> <mailto:bhmccie_at_gmail.com>> wrote:
>
> Ryan,
> Based on some of your previous threads, I don't think I would
> classify you as ignorant. :) Either way, you hit exactly on what I
> was subtly driving at. Even with the versatility of the class-maps
> in the IOS looking ACE configuration, it's not on par with F5 or
> NetScaler. I just was curious from Michael if they had come to the
> same conclusions. The one positive spin you can put on the ACE is
> virtualization. Being able to break everything into contexts has
> been nice. But the performance and feature limitations are just a
> few too many years behind the other more dedicated appliance folks.
>
> --Hammer--
>
>
> On 8/12/2010 1:13 PM, Ryan West 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
>> <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 - 14:19:47 ART