Mailing List Archive

Catalyst vs. Nexus
Hello,

I am working on the first 10Gig deployment in a small data center. Main
driver is a SQL database, so there will be a bunch of SQL servers
virtualized using VMware, running against a SAN over iSCSI.

I've done some research and it looks like I can build the network using
a Catalyst 4900M or a Nexus 5010, at about the same cost. I am familiar
with the Catalyst family, but have no experience with the Nexus. At
this point, the only major difference I see is that Nexus supports Fibre
Channel (which I don't need). For being different product families, I
am having a hard time understanding what the major differences are. Can
anyone enlighten me?
If anyone has hands-on experience with both and willing to share, that
would be most appreciated.

Thanks,
Michael Malitsky


_______________________________________________
cisco-nsp mailing list cisco-nsp@puck.nether.net
https://puck.nether.net/mailman/listinfo/cisco-nsp
archive at http://puck.nether.net/pipermail/cisco-nsp/
Re: Catalyst vs. Nexus [ In reply to ]
Other than FCoE, the major difference is L3 switching. The 5010 is a
Layer2-only device and the 4900M can do routing. If you're trying to
shave off microseconds, the 5010 will beat the 4900M in switching
latency. On the other hand, the 4900M is modular and well suited for
mixed, low-density 1gig/10gig deployments.


Darrin Machay

YJT Solutions
440 South LaSalle St, Suite 3990
Chicago, IL 60605
Office: 312-362-4712
Cell: 312-961-6977
Darrin.Machay@YJTSolutions.com
www.YJTSolutions.com



-----Original Message-----
From: cisco-nsp-bounces@puck.nether.net
[mailto:cisco-nsp-bounces@puck.nether.net] On Behalf Of Michael Malitsky
Sent: Tuesday, September 08, 2009 4:12 PM
To: cisco-nsp@puck.nether.net
Subject: [c-nsp] Catalyst vs. Nexus

Hello,

I am working on the first 10Gig deployment in a small data center. Main
driver is a SQL database, so there will be a bunch of SQL servers
virtualized using VMware, running against a SAN over iSCSI.

I've done some research and it looks like I can build the network using
a Catalyst 4900M or a Nexus 5010, at about the same cost. I am familiar
with the Catalyst family, but have no experience with the Nexus. At
this point, the only major difference I see is that Nexus supports Fibre
Channel (which I don't need). For being different product families, I
am having a hard time understanding what the major differences are. Can
anyone enlighten me?
If anyone has hands-on experience with both and willing to share, that
would be most appreciated.

Thanks,
Michael Malitsky


_______________________________________________
cisco-nsp mailing list cisco-nsp@puck.nether.net
https://puck.nether.net/mailman/listinfo/cisco-nsp
archive at http://puck.nether.net/pipermail/cisco-nsp/
_______________________________________________
cisco-nsp mailing list cisco-nsp@puck.nether.net
https://puck.nether.net/mailman/listinfo/cisco-nsp
archive at http://puck.nether.net/pipermail/cisco-nsp/
Re: Catalyst vs. Nexus [ In reply to ]
The Nexus 5K does not support VTP. That may or may not be a issue for you.

Patrick.

Darrin Machay wrote:
> Other than FCoE, the major difference is L3 switching. The 5010 is a
> Layer2-only device and the 4900M can do routing. If you're trying to
> shave off microseconds, the 5010 will beat the 4900M in switching
> latency. On the other hand, the 4900M is modular and well suited for
> mixed, low-density 1gig/10gig deployments.
>
>
> Darrin Machay
>
> YJT Solutions
> 440 South LaSalle St, Suite 3990
> Chicago, IL 60605
> Office: 312-362-4712
> Cell: 312-961-6977
> Darrin.Machay@YJTSolutions.com
> www.YJTSolutions.com
>
>
>
> -----Original Message-----
> From: cisco-nsp-bounces@puck.nether.net
> [mailto:cisco-nsp-bounces@puck.nether.net] On Behalf Of Michael Malitsky
> Sent: Tuesday, September 08, 2009 4:12 PM
> To: cisco-nsp@puck.nether.net
> Subject: [c-nsp] Catalyst vs. Nexus
>
> Hello,
>
> I am working on the first 10Gig deployment in a small data center. Main
> driver is a SQL database, so there will be a bunch of SQL servers
> virtualized using VMware, running against a SAN over iSCSI.
>
> I've done some research and it looks like I can build the network using
> a Catalyst 4900M or a Nexus 5010, at about the same cost. I am familiar
> with the Catalyst family, but have no experience with the Nexus. At
> this point, the only major difference I see is that Nexus supports Fibre
> Channel (which I don't need). For being different product families, I
> am having a hard time understanding what the major differences are. Can
> anyone enlighten me?
> If anyone has hands-on experience with both and willing to share, that
> would be most appreciated.
>
> Thanks,
> Michael Malitsky
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> cisco-nsp mailing list cisco-nsp@puck.nether.net
> https://puck.nether.net/mailman/listinfo/cisco-nsp
> archive at http://puck.nether.net/pipermail/cisco-nsp/
> _______________________________________________
> cisco-nsp mailing list cisco-nsp@puck.nether.net
> https://puck.nether.net/mailman/listinfo/cisco-nsp
> archive at http://puck.nether.net/pipermail/cisco-nsp/
_______________________________________________
cisco-nsp mailing list cisco-nsp@puck.nether.net
https://puck.nether.net/mailman/listinfo/cisco-nsp
archive at http://puck.nether.net/pipermail/cisco-nsp/
Re: Catalyst vs. Nexus [ In reply to ]
Hi Michael.

The difference between Nexus and an normal Catalyst is the nexus is an cut-though switch where the catalyst is an store-and forward. we use Nexus for backup service.
I can recommend using Nexus, it works fine, and it's fastere. The interface is a bit different but not much. I'll say you'll get it running real fast.

/Arne

-----Oprindelig meddelelse-----
Fra: cisco-nsp-bounces@puck.nether.net [mailto:cisco-nsp-bounces@puck.nether.net] På vegne af Michael Malitsky
Sendt: 8. september 2009 23:12
Til: cisco-nsp@puck.nether.net
Emne: [c-nsp] Catalyst vs. Nexus

Hello,

I am working on the first 10Gig deployment in a small data center. Main driver is a SQL database, so there will be a bunch of SQL servers virtualized using VMware, running against a SAN over iSCSI.

I've done some research and it looks like I can build the network using a Catalyst 4900M or a Nexus 5010, at about the same cost. I am familiar with the Catalyst family, but have no experience with the Nexus. At this point, the only major difference I see is that Nexus supports Fibre Channel (which I don't need). For being different product families, I am having a hard time understanding what the major differences are. Can anyone enlighten me?
If anyone has hands-on experience with both and willing to share, that would be most appreciated.

Thanks,
Michael Malitsky


_______________________________________________
cisco-nsp mailing list cisco-nsp@puck.nether.net https://puck.nether.net/mailman/listinfo/cisco-nsp
archive at http://puck.nether.net/pipermail/cisco-nsp/
_______________________________________________
cisco-nsp mailing list cisco-nsp@puck.nether.net
https://puck.nether.net/mailman/listinfo/cisco-nsp
archive at http://puck.nether.net/pipermail/cisco-nsp/
Re: Catalyst vs. Nexus [ In reply to ]
Michael,

I suggest you take a look here:
http://www.cisco.com/en/US/products/ps9441/Products_Sub_Category_Home.ht
ml

Basically the whole Nexus family is running a different OS (NX-OS) which
is based on the MDS storage OS line.
http://www.cisco.com/en/US/products/ps9372/index.html

There are a few differences between Catalyst switches and Nexus
switches.

For example, Nexus supports vPC, which means that you have a
multi-chassis EtherChannel trunk from a pair of Nexus 5000/7000
distribution switches to any EtherChannel enabled access switch. This
basically doubles the Access->Distribution bandwidth as you have no
links blocked by Spanning Tree.

Another major difference is the integration of Nexus 2000 Fabric
Extenders with Nexus 5000 switches. The Nexus 2000 switches basically
act as remote (over 10Gig fiber) "linecards" of the Nexus 5000. This
allows deploying top of the rack switches without the additional
management overhead:
http://www.cisco.com/en/US/products/ps10110/index.html

Hope this helps.

Arie

-----Original Message-----
From: cisco-nsp-bounces@puck.nether.net
[mailto:cisco-nsp-bounces@puck.nether.net] On Behalf Of Michael Malitsky
Sent: Wednesday, September 09, 2009 00:12
To: cisco-nsp@puck.nether.net
Subject: [c-nsp] Catalyst vs. Nexus

Hello,

I am working on the first 10Gig deployment in a small data center. Main
driver is a SQL database, so there will be a bunch of SQL servers
virtualized using VMware, running against a SAN over iSCSI.

I've done some research and it looks like I can build the network using
a Catalyst 4900M or a Nexus 5010, at about the same cost. I am familiar
with the Catalyst family, but have no experience with the Nexus. At
this point, the only major difference I see is that Nexus supports Fibre
Channel (which I don't need). For being different product families, I
am having a hard time understanding what the major differences are. Can
anyone enlighten me?
If anyone has hands-on experience with both and willing to share, that
would be most appreciated.

Thanks,
Michael Malitsky


_______________________________________________
cisco-nsp mailing list cisco-nsp@puck.nether.net
https://puck.nether.net/mailman/listinfo/cisco-nsp
archive at http://puck.nether.net/pipermail/cisco-nsp/
_______________________________________________
cisco-nsp mailing list cisco-nsp@puck.nether.net
https://puck.nether.net/mailman/listinfo/cisco-nsp
archive at http://puck.nether.net/pipermail/cisco-nsp/
Re: Catalyst vs. Nexus [ In reply to ]
On 09/09/2009 09:08, Arie Vayner (avayner) wrote:
> There are a few differences between Catalyst switches and Nexus
> switches.

The nexus n5k / n2k switches are a completely different architecture which
use different software. I haven't played with them, but they show promise.

> Another major difference is the integration of Nexus 2000 Fabric
> Extenders with Nexus 5000 switches. The Nexus 2000 switches basically
> act as remote (over 10Gig fiber) "linecards" of the Nexus 5000. This
> allows deploying top of the rack switches without the additional
> management overhead:

The N2K only support 1000 connections, not 10/100. So if you have slower
speed kit like console servers or tiny boxes or whatever, you will need to
cope with these separately. This is noted obliquely in the documentation:

> http://www.cisco.com/en/US/prod/collateral/switches/ps9441/ps10110/data_sheet_c78-507093.html

> Layer 2 Features
[...]
> • Autonegotiation to 1000BASE-T; full duplex on host interfaces

Nick
_______________________________________________
cisco-nsp mailing list cisco-nsp@puck.nether.net
https://puck.nether.net/mailman/listinfo/cisco-nsp
archive at http://puck.nether.net/pipermail/cisco-nsp/
Re: Catalyst vs. Nexus [ In reply to ]
A few other thoughts on the Nexus difference from a 6500 based on my experience
since I am still learning the 7K platform:


1) MPLS the 7K is VRF Light syle
2) Application of an access-list by doing a tftp->run (with out removing the acl
which is applied to the interface) is extremely taxing in the system and very
slow. The Nexus seems to recompile the ACL after each line there are work
arounds vs have the acl upload completely and recompile once.
3) Nexus STP is RSTP not pvst+
4) The TACACS implimentation of this platform seems incomplete.
TACACS is useable, but local-admin accounts must be configured and used
for configuration.
5) The layout of the configuration is different (as someone mentioned)
Features must be enabled (ie., ospf,tacacs must be enabled by using
'feature ???') if ospf feature is not enabled, it can't be used until it's
enabled (not configured).
OSPF is configured mostly under the interface (passive-interface,
process # vs globally)
HSRP is configured like an interface where you enable the hsrp #, then
you are in a config-hsrp# mode where you then finish the hsrp config. HSRP is
not just configured under "router(conf-if)#"
6) QoS you specify the queueing structure (ie., 1P2q4T) and not the queueing or
scheduling or thresholds. Obviously there is the ability to tweak the QoS, but
the base config viewing is much simpler
7) Obviously there are many hardware differences (Resilient Sups which are
better than the dual-sup on the 6500), transfering the configuration from a
6500 to a 7K (ie., replacing a 6500 with a 7K) is pretty challenging. Think of
it from going from CatOS to CATIOS and having to create a script to migrate your
config (trunk, vrf) to the 7K.

Just some thoughts...

DMT

-----Original Message-----
From: cisco-nsp-bounces@puck.nether.net
[mailto:cisco-nsp-bounces@puck.nether.net] On Behalf Of Nick Hilliard
Sent: Wednesday, September 09, 2009 6:12 AM
To: cisco-nsp@puck.nether.net
Subject: Re: [c-nsp] Catalyst vs. Nexus

On 09/09/2009 09:08, Arie Vayner (avayner) wrote:
> There are a few differences between Catalyst switches and Nexus
> switches.

The nexus n5k / n2k switches are a completely different architecture which use
different software. I haven't played with them, but they show promise.

> Another major difference is the integration of Nexus 2000 Fabric
> Extenders with Nexus 5000 switches. The Nexus 2000 switches basically
> act as remote (over 10Gig fiber) "linecards" of the Nexus 5000. This
> allows deploying top of the rack switches without the additional
> management overhead:

The N2K only support 1000 connections, not 10/100. So if you have slower speed
kit like console servers or tiny boxes or whatever, you will need to cope with
these separately. This is noted obliquely in the documentation:

> http://www.cisco.com/en/US/prod/collateral/switches/ps9441/ps10110/dat
> a_sheet_c78-507093.html

> Layer 2 Features
[...]
> * Autonegotiation to 1000BASE-T; full duplex on host interfaces

Nick
_______________________________________________
cisco-nsp mailing list cisco-nsp@puck.nether.net
https://puck.nether.net/mailman/listinfo/cisco-nsp
archive at http://puck.nether.net/pipermail/cisco-nsp/


The information in this e-mail is intended only for the person to whom it is
addressed. If you believe this e-mail was sent to you in error and the e-mail
contains patient information, please contact the Partners Compliance HelpLine at
http://www.partners.org/complianceline . If the e-mail was sent to you in error
but does not contain patient information, please contact the sender and properly
dispose of the e-mail.

_______________________________________________
cisco-nsp mailing list cisco-nsp@puck.nether.net
https://puck.nether.net/mailman/listinfo/cisco-nsp
archive at http://puck.nether.net/pipermail/cisco-nsp/
Re: Catalyst vs. Nexus [ In reply to ]
On 09/09/2009 11:43, Todd, Douglas M. wrote:
> 1) MPLS the 7K is VRF Light syle

it's EARL8, so it's mpls capable at a hardware level.

> 3) Nexus STP is RSTP not pvst+

The N5K supports pvst+:

http://www.cisco.com/en/US/prod/collateral/switches/ps9441/ps9670/data_sheet_c78-461802.html

> OSPF is configured mostly under the interface (passive-interface,
> process # vs globally)

That's a change for the better. The IOS style ospfv2 configuration is all
wrong.

Nick
_______________________________________________
cisco-nsp mailing list cisco-nsp@puck.nether.net
https://puck.nether.net/mailman/listinfo/cisco-nsp
archive at http://puck.nether.net/pipermail/cisco-nsp/
Re: Catalyst vs. Nexus [ In reply to ]
On Sep 9, 2009, at 5:12 PM, Nick Hilliard wrote:

> The nexus n5k / n2k switches are a completely different architecture
> which use different software. I haven't played with them, but they
> show promise.


One caveat to be aware of is that they don't support NetFlow, so your
network telemetry needs must be met at other points in the topology.

-----------------------------------------------------------------------
Roland Dobbins <rdobbins@arbor.net> // <http://www.arbornetworks.com>

Sorry, sometimes I mistake your existential crises for technical
insights.

-- xkcd #625

_______________________________________________
cisco-nsp mailing list cisco-nsp@puck.nether.net
https://puck.nether.net/mailman/listinfo/cisco-nsp
archive at http://puck.nether.net/pipermail/cisco-nsp/
Re: Catalyst vs. Nexus [ In reply to ]
Hey Nick:

So the 6500 is EARL7 and mpls runs in the ASIC, guess I don' understand the
difference between the EARL7 and EARL8. Thought mpls on the 6500 was also
hardware is this why the 7K earl 8 does not completely support mpls like the
6500? Besided the idea of the 7K being a 6500 killer... :)

Why did they not make the 7K support pvst+ if the 5K supports it? Guess moving
the RSPT is a better idea anyway.

Aggreed about the ospf interface style, make much more sense.

DMT
-----Original Message-----
From: Nick Hilliard [mailto:nick@inex.ie]
Sent: Wednesday, September 09, 2009 6:51 AM
To: Todd, Douglas M.
Cc: cisco-nsp@puck.nether.net
Subject: Re: [c-nsp] Catalyst vs. Nexus

On 09/09/2009 11:43, Todd, Douglas M. wrote:
> 1) MPLS the 7K is VRF Light syle

it's EARL8, so it's mpls capable at a hardware level.

> 3) Nexus STP is RSTP not pvst+

The N5K supports pvst+:

http://www.cisco.com/en/US/prod/collateral/switches/ps9441/ps9670/data_sheet_c78
-461802.html

> OSPF is configured mostly under the interface (passive-interface,
> process # vs globally)

That's a change for the better. The IOS style ospfv2 configuration is all
wrong.

Nick


The information in this e-mail is intended only for the person to whom it is
addressed. If you believe this e-mail was sent to you in error and the e-mail
contains patient information, please contact the Partners Compliance HelpLine at
http://www.partners.org/complianceline . If the e-mail was sent to you in error
but does not contain patient information, please contact the sender and properly
dispose of the e-mail.

_______________________________________________
cisco-nsp mailing list cisco-nsp@puck.nether.net
https://puck.nether.net/mailman/listinfo/cisco-nsp
archive at http://puck.nether.net/pipermail/cisco-nsp/
Re: Catalyst vs. Nexus [ In reply to ]
On 09/09/2009 11:58, Todd, Douglas M. wrote:
> So the 6500 is EARL7 and mpls runs in the ASIC, guess I don' understand the
> difference between the EARL7 and EARL8. Thought mpls on the 6500 was also
> hardware is this why the 7K earl 8 does not completely support mpls like the
> 6500?

It's a software thing, I understand. The N7K is pitched as a data centre
switch rather than a WAN system, so maybe it makes some sense from the
point of view of a product development manager not to implement full mpls
for the time being.

> Besided the idea of the 7K being a 6500 killer... :)

Well, sort of. It's TCAM limited to 128k FIB entries which is very low,
although I understand that it supports netflow properly, which is a real
improvement.

> Why did they not make the 7K support pvst+ if the 5K supports it?

Heh, no idea :-)

Nick
_______________________________________________
cisco-nsp mailing list cisco-nsp@puck.nether.net
https://puck.nether.net/mailman/listinfo/cisco-nsp
archive at http://puck.nether.net/pipermail/cisco-nsp/
Re: Catalyst vs. Nexus [ In reply to ]
On Sep 9, 2009, at 6:18 PM, Nick Hilliard wrote:

> although I understand that it supports netflow properly, which is a
> real improvement.


It does - packet-sampled control of flow creation (i.e., true sampled
NetFlow), logical OR of TCP flags within a flow, dropped traffic,
layer-2 NetFlow across ports within the same VLAN, larger NetFlow
table size, etc.

ACL construction is much easier than on 6500 (doesn't have the weird
LOU constraints), and you get per-interface uRPF mode settings, as
well (vs. whole-box on 6500).

-----------------------------------------------------------------------
Roland Dobbins <rdobbins@arbor.net> // <http://www.arbornetworks.com>

Sorry, sometimes I mistake your existential crises for technical
insights.

-- xkcd #625

_______________________________________________
cisco-nsp mailing list cisco-nsp@puck.nether.net
https://puck.nether.net/mailman/listinfo/cisco-nsp
archive at http://puck.nether.net/pipermail/cisco-nsp/
Re: Catalyst vs. Nexus [ In reply to ]
hi Todd,
a few of the cisco folks that are subscribed to cisco-nsp focus on the
Nexus range & we're a pretty friendly bunch.
there's a few things below that aren't quite correct. see inline
below...

On 09/09/2009, at 8:43 PM, Todd, Douglas M. wrote:

> A few other thoughts on the Nexus difference from a 6500 based on my
> experience
> since I am still learning the 7K platform:
>
> 1) MPLS the 7K is VRF Light syle

actually, at this point in time, MPLS is not available on N7K. the
current shipping M1 forwarding engine based I/O modules are capable of
MPLS which will be enabled in a future release.

w.r.t. VRFs, everything on NX-OS is vrf aware. NX-OS is similar to IOS
CLI in look-and-feel but one fundamental difference is that there is
no 'global' routing table like there is in IOS. everything is a vrf.

> 2) Application of an access-list by doing a tftp->run (with out
> removing the acl
> which is applied to the interface) is extremely taxing in the system
> and very
> slow. The Nexus seems to recompile the ACL after each line there are
> work
> arounds vs have the acl upload completely and recompile once.

ACLs as entered in a "config terminal" session are applied to hardware
the moment you hit enter on an individual line - yes.
the system is smart enough to do 'inline' ACL processing if you have
an ACL that makes appropriate use of sequence numbers in it.

if you're just wholesale uploading a replacement ACL in bulk, then
suggest you use "configure session" where you can ask the system to
'verify' the ACL will fit in CL-TCAM resources then 'apply' it.
using configure sessions would not 'tax' it or iteratively recompute
it on every new ACL line you enter.

see <http://www.cisco.com/en/US/docs/switches/datacenter/sw/4_2/nx-os/system_management/configuration/guide/sm_7sessionmgr.html
>

ACLs are always committed in an atomic manner on N7K provided you have
CL-TCAM resources to do so.

>
> 3) Nexus STP is RSTP not pvst+

N7Ks STP is PVRST(+) or MST - same as what you would have on a
Catalyst platform.
the only thing that isn't there (intentionally) is the ability to
configure N7K as a legacy 802.1D STP - although as dictated by the
standards, N7K can talk legacy 802.1D to legacy bridges - but you
cannot intentionally configure it to behave in that legacy manner.

this is actually a good thing. :)


> 4) The TACACS implimentation of this platform seems incomplete.
> TACACS is useable, but local-admin accounts must be configured and
> used
> for configuration.

this isn't quite true. RBAC (roles based access control) is applied
to all management access, whether you're managing via CLI, SNMP or
Netconf/XML. this is a divergence from the historic IOS 'priv level
15' / "enable" type mechanisms but there is no reason why you cannot
assign a RBAC role from an AAA server whether that be via TACACS+ or
RADIUS.

by default, a priv-level of 15 from an AAA server maps a user to the
predefined RBAC role of network-admin or vdc-admin automatically.
alternatively you can have the AAA server provide the relevant AV-Pair
to provide the RBAC role(s) a given user is in.

the documentation chapter on AAA on cisco.com provides the details for
all of the above.
see <http://www.cisco.com/en/US/docs/switches/datacenter/sw/4_2/nx-os/security/configuration/guide/Cisco_Nexus_7000_NX-OS_Security_Configuration_Guide__Release_4.2_chapter3.html#con_1235748
>

>
> 5) The layout of the configuration is different (as someone mentioned)
> Features must be enabled (ie., ospf,tacacs must be enabled by using
> 'feature ???') if ospf feature is not enabled, it can't be used
> until it's
> enabled (not configured).

yep - thats intentional. services are 'conditional' on NX-OS. until
you enable the 'feature' the process for that feature is not running,
consuming RAM or even part of the CLI parser chain.

> OSPF is configured mostly under the interface (passive-interface,
> process # vs globally)

there is the historic way of doing it too, if you wish to (e.g.
'network' statements globally) - but the general feedback has been
that interface-centric is more intuitive for many things.

> 6) QoS you specify the queueing structure (ie., 1P2q4T) and not the
> queueing or
> scheduling or thresholds. Obviously there is the ability to tweak
> the QoS, but
> the base config viewing is much simpler

IOS is moving towards this level of QoS configuration too. within
Cisco parlence this is referred to as MQC (Modular QoS CLI).

>


cheers,

lincoln.
_______________________________________________
cisco-nsp mailing list cisco-nsp@puck.nether.net
https://puck.nether.net/mailman/listinfo/cisco-nsp
archive at http://puck.nether.net/pipermail/cisco-nsp/
Re: Catalyst vs. Nexus [ In reply to ]
>>the 5010 will beat the 4900M in switching latency

Based on the numbers I have, there are some cases where the 4900M is a
little faster. It gets especially interesting when you toss 1Gb into
the mix. See http://slepicka.net/nexus5klatency.png.

I've deployed both -- 4900M in low-density 10Gb applications and Nexus
5010/5020 in high-density 10Gb applications. Other than some minor
issues with the Nexus (off the top of my head, QoS support is limited --
probably due to the cut-through architecture -- and you can't connect a
switch to a FEX port), I'm happy with them.

James


Darrin Machay wrote:
> Other than FCoE, the major difference is L3 switching. The 5010 is a
> Layer2-only device and the 4900M can do routing. If you're trying to
> shave off microseconds, the 5010 will beat the 4900M in switching
> latency. On the other hand, the 4900M is modular and well suited for
> mixed, low-density 1gig/10gig deployments.
>
>
> Darrin Machay
>
> YJT Solutions
> 440 South LaSalle St, Suite 3990
> Chicago, IL 60605
> Office: 312-362-4712
> Cell: 312-961-6977
> Darrin.Machay@YJTSolutions.com
> www.YJTSolutions.com
>
>
>
> -----Original Message-----
> From: cisco-nsp-bounces@puck.nether.net
> [mailto:cisco-nsp-bounces@puck.nether.net] On Behalf Of Michael Malitsky
> Sent: Tuesday, September 08, 2009 4:12 PM
> To: cisco-nsp@puck.nether.net
> Subject: [c-nsp] Catalyst vs. Nexus
>
> Hello,
>
> I am working on the first 10Gig deployment in a small data center. Main
> driver is a SQL database, so there will be a bunch of SQL servers
> virtualized using VMware, running against a SAN over iSCSI.
>
> I've done some research and it looks like I can build the network using
> a Catalyst 4900M or a Nexus 5010, at about the same cost. I am familiar
> with the Catalyst family, but have no experience with the Nexus. At
> this point, the only major difference I see is that Nexus supports Fibre
> Channel (which I don't need). For being different product families, I
> am having a hard time understanding what the major differences are. Can
> anyone enlighten me?
> If anyone has hands-on experience with both and willing to share, that
> would be most appreciated.
>
> Thanks,
> Michael Malitsky
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> cisco-nsp mailing list cisco-nsp@puck.nether.net
> https://puck.nether.net/mailman/listinfo/cisco-nsp
> archive at http://puck.nether.net/pipermail/cisco-nsp/
> _______________________________________________
> cisco-nsp mailing list cisco-nsp@puck.nether.net
> https://puck.nether.net/mailman/listinfo/cisco-nsp
> archive at http://puck.nether.net/pipermail/cisco-nsp/
>


_______________________________________________
cisco-nsp mailing list cisco-nsp@puck.nether.net
https://puck.nether.net/mailman/listinfo/cisco-nsp
archive at http://puck.nether.net/pipermail/cisco-nsp/
Re: Catalyst vs. Nexus [ In reply to ]
>
> actually, at this point in time, MPLS is not available on N7K. the current
> shipping M1 forwarding engine based I/O modules are capable of MPLS which
> will be enabled in a future release.
>

Interesting. I guess the N7K might yet replace the C6K. If Cisco would ship
an EARL8 based Sup for the 6500 running NX-OS, I'd be happy...

Question about the N7K: are VLANs global to the switch, like the C6K, or can
they be configured to be local to a switchport? I'd like to know if L3
switchports can have the same subinterfaces or not.

Tim:>
_______________________________________________
cisco-nsp mailing list cisco-nsp@puck.nether.net
https://puck.nether.net/mailman/listinfo/cisco-nsp
archive at http://puck.nether.net/pipermail/cisco-nsp/
Re: Catalyst vs. Nexus [ In reply to ]
Hi Tim, please see inline below:

At 10:58 AM 9/9/2009, Tim Durack gushed:

> >
> > actually, at this point in time, MPLS is not available on N7K. the current
> > shipping M1 forwarding engine based I/O modules are capable of MPLS which
> > will be enabled in a future release.
> >
>
>Interesting. I guess the N7K might yet replace the C6K. If Cisco would ship
>an EARL8 based Sup for the 6500 running NX-OS, I'd be happy...

There is a longterm roadmap on 6k for an E8 based sup, but that would
be an IOS system.


>Question about the N7K: are VLANs global to the switch,

No, they are interface local.

> like the C6K, or can
>they be configured to be local to a switchport? I'd like to know if L3
>switchports can have the same subinterfaces or not.

You can have an arbitrary # of subinterfaces terminating the same
vlan ID, along with an SVI & switchports with that same VLAN ID, and
route between them all.


Hope that helps,
Tim


>Tim:>
>_______________________________________________
>cisco-nsp mailing list cisco-nsp@puck.nether.net
><https://puck.nether.net/mailman/listinfo/cisco-nsp>https://puck.nether.net/mailman/listinfo/cisco-nsp
>archive at
><http://puck.nether.net/pipermail/cisco-nsp/>http://puck.nether.net/pipermail/cisco-nsp/




Tim Stevenson, tstevens@cisco.com
Routing & Switching CCIE #5561
Technical Marketing Engineer, Cisco Nexus 7000
Cisco - http://www.cisco.com
IP Phone: 408-526-6759
********************************************************
The contents of this message may be *Cisco Confidential*
and are intended for the specified recipients only.

_______________________________________________
cisco-nsp mailing list cisco-nsp@puck.nether.net
https://puck.nether.net/mailman/listinfo/cisco-nsp
archive at http://puck.nether.net/pipermail/cisco-nsp/
Re: Catalyst vs. Nexus [ In reply to ]
On Wednesday 09 September 2009 06:50:47 pm Nick Hilliard
wrote:

> That's a change for the better. The IOS style ospfv2
> configuration is all wrong.

IOS has had OSPF configuration just like IS-IS (i.e., under
the interface), for quite a while now:

http://www.cisco.com/en/US/docs/ios/12_0s/feature/guide/ospfarea.html

Cheers,

Mark.
Re: Catalyst vs. Nexus [ In reply to ]
On Thu, 10 Sep 2009, Mark Tinka wrote:
> IOS has had OSPF configuration just like IS-IS (i.e., under
> the interface), for quite a while now:
>
> http://www.cisco.com/en/US/docs/ios/12_0s/feature/guide/ospfarea.html

It seems to be in only a few select releases:
12.0(29)S
12.3(11)T
12.2(1)SB
12.2(33)SRB
It's not in any release I run. Ah, the chaos which is the IOS software
tree!

________________________________________________________________________
Jay Ford, Network Engineering Group, Information Technology Services
University of Iowa, Iowa City, IA 52242
email: jay-ford@uiowa.edu, phone: 319-335-5555, fax: 319-335-2951
_______________________________________________
cisco-nsp mailing list cisco-nsp@puck.nether.net
https://puck.nether.net/mailman/listinfo/cisco-nsp
archive at http://puck.nether.net/pipermail/cisco-nsp/
Re: Catalyst vs. Nexus [ In reply to ]
On Thursday 10 September 2009 11:24:38 pm Jay Ford wrote:

> It seems to be in only a few select releases:

I recall it being in other non-documented releases. I've
used it in 12.4T for some workshops we gave in Asia and
Africa.

I know I have it in 12.2(33)SRC, which means it's likely in
SRD also. But yes, chaos, definitely...

Cheers,

Mark.
Re: Catalyst vs. Nexus [ In reply to ]
> > IOS has had OSPF configuration just like IS-IS (i.e., under
> > the interface), for quite a while now:
> >
> > http://www.cisco.com/en/US/docs/ios/12_0s/feature/guide/ospfarea.html
>
> It seems to be in only a few select releases:
> 12.0(29)S
> 12.3(11)T
> 12.2(1)SB
> 12.2(33)SRB
> It's not in any release I run. Ah, the chaos which is the IOS software
> tree!

Now you know (one of the reasons) why some of us love our Juniper
M/MX/T routers :-)

Steinar Haug, Nethelp consulting, sthaug@nethelp.no
_______________________________________________
cisco-nsp mailing list cisco-nsp@puck.nether.net
https://puck.nether.net/mailman/listinfo/cisco-nsp
archive at http://puck.nether.net/pipermail/cisco-nsp/
Re: Catalyst vs. Nexus [ In reply to ]
Hi,

On Thu, Sep 10, 2009 at 06:28:25PM +0200, sthaug@nethelp.no wrote:
> Now you know (one of the reasons) why some of us love our Juniper
> M/MX/T routers :-)

Why am I not suprised at all to see this comment? ;-))

Now, with Junipers, you have incompatible hardware thingies ("no, you
cannot use feature X with gige module Y"). But as far as software goes,
they are doing an amazing job - while Cisco is moving itself deeper and
deeper into the mud.

(Did I send my daily rant about the SR and SX split already? But this
is really just the tip of the 12.2/S/S* 12.3/T 12.4/T XR XE NX... iceberg)

gert
--
USENET is *not* the non-clickable part of WWW!
//www.muc.de/~gert/
Gert Doering - Munich, Germany gert@greenie.muc.de
fax: +49-89-35655025 gert@net.informatik.tu-muenchen.de
Re: Catalyst vs. Nexus [ In reply to ]
Gert Doering wrote:
> Hi,
>
> On Thu, Sep 10, 2009 at 06:28:25PM +0200, sthaug@nethelp.no wrote:
>> Now you know (one of the reasons) why some of us love our Juniper
>> M/MX/T routers :-)
>
> Why am I not suprised at all to see this comment? ;-))
>
> Now, with Junipers, you have incompatible hardware thingies ("no, you
> cannot use feature X with gige module Y"). But as far as software goes,
> they are doing an amazing job - while Cisco is moving itself deeper and
> deeper into the mud.

It's also worth emphasising that JunOS has a consistent cross-platform
API for configuring their devices, and has done for a long while now.

Cisco's (embryonic) efforts seem to be falling firmly into the "one XML
schema per device, but you can tunnel them all over netconf!"

I am not amused.

IOS sometimes feels like the very best that the 1980s has to offer... I
mean, come on - I was actually IMPRESSED when 12.2(33)SX gave me "show
run part router bgp ASNUM". Is that really the best we can do in 2009?

Sigh.
_______________________________________________
cisco-nsp mailing list cisco-nsp@puck.nether.net
https://puck.nether.net/mailman/listinfo/cisco-nsp
archive at http://puck.nether.net/pipermail/cisco-nsp/
Re: Catalyst vs. Nexus [ In reply to ]
On 11/09/2009 11:36, Phil Mayers wrote:
> IOS sometimes feels like the very best that the 1980s has to offer... I
> mean, come on - I was actually IMPRESSED when 12.2(33)SX gave me "show
> run part router bgp ASNUM". Is that really the best we can do in 2009?

I remember my cisco account manager in 1998 telling me that mainline IOS12
would be fully modular. W00h00!

Cisco is a very large company and it appears to have a lot of empires.
Multiple empires beget balkanisation and lead to the sort of software train
splits that we see. I can imagine that it must be very difficult to keep
any sort of control on source code, when you have all sorts of groups with
all sorts of different product lines, different requirements and different
time-scales.

Problem is, forking your code is like scrambling your egg. Very easy to
do, and it can even taste nice. Unscrambling is not so easy, though.

The problem brings to mind something that Vijay Gill from Google said*
recently about software development, albeit in a slightly different
context: "you require an insane amount of force of will". If it's even
possible to maintain some form of control over the IOS code base (and
realistically, I don't know if it is, given the diversity of the product
set), insane force of will would be required.

Nick
*
http://www.theregister.co.uk/2009/06/27/google_mocks_microsoft_online_infrastructure/
_______________________________________________
cisco-nsp mailing list cisco-nsp@puck.nether.net
https://puck.nether.net/mailman/listinfo/cisco-nsp
archive at http://puck.nether.net/pipermail/cisco-nsp/
Re: Catalyst vs. Nexus [ In reply to ]
Nick Hilliard wrote:

> Cisco is a very large company and it appears to have a lot of empires.
> Multiple empires beget balkanisation and lead to the sort of software
> train splits that we see. I can imagine that it must be very difficult
> to keep any sort of control on source code, when you have all sorts of
> groups with all sorts of different product lines, different requirements
> and different time-scales.

> Nick

Just to add another layer of IOS entropy..

I forget where I heard it but supposedly the same source code compiled
by different people results in a different binary because people at
Cisco maintain their own separate Makefiles with their own set of
compiler flags. The "Compiled by.." line is more useful than you might
think.

-ML



_______________________________________________
cisco-nsp mailing list cisco-nsp@puck.nether.net
https://puck.nether.net/mailman/listinfo/cisco-nsp
archive at http://puck.nether.net/pipermail/cisco-nsp/
Re: Catalyst vs. Nexus [ In reply to ]
>
> Just to add another layer of IOS entropy..
>
> I forget where I heard it but supposedly the same source code compiled
> by different people results in a different binary because people at
> Cisco maintain their own separate Makefiles with their own set of
> compiler flags. The "Compiled by.." line is more useful than you might
> think.
>
> -ML

Well, in the good ol' days, maybe and possibly was. But these days
everything (including the makefiles) definitely should be part of the
code control process...

I hope so at least ;-)


--

deejay


__________ Informacia od ESET NOD32 Antivirus, verzia databazy 4416
(20090911) __________

Tuto spravu preveril ESET NOD32 Antivirus.

http://www.eset.sk

_______________________________________________
cisco-nsp mailing list cisco-nsp@puck.nether.net
https://puck.nether.net/mailman/listinfo/cisco-nsp
archive at http://puck.nether.net/pipermail/cisco-nsp/

1 2  View All