Mailing List Archive: willing to be reference for or against Force10?

willing to be reference for or against Force10?

Jan 8, 2007, 7:06 PM

Post #1 of 5 (6741 views)

We are evaluating several architectures to replace our existing
Extreme Black Diamond switch backbone. Right now the choices are to
use Force10 as a single provider, or Juniper routes with Cisco (or
Force10) functioning as a port aggregation switch.

Is anyone here willing to be a reference either for or against using
Force10 as both port aggregation and border routing? I'd happily buy
you a beer/tea/poison-of-choice to hear about the scorch marks :-)

--
Jo Rhett
senior geek
Silicon Valley Colocation

willing to be reference for or against Force10? [ In reply to ]

acm at dullroar

Jan 10, 2007, 7:20 AM

Post #2 of 5 (6442 views)

Permalink

We have a ring of S50's, so perhaps our application isn't that similar
to yours. We've encountered some buffering issues when data transits
from higher speed (1 and 10 gig) to lower speed links (100 meg). The
cli also seems to be evolving quite a bit so that it's closer to the E
series' cli. F10 has been working with us to resolve our issues.

Andy

On Mon, Jan 08, 2007 at 07:06:55PM -0800, Jo Rhett wrote:
> We are evaluating several architectures to replace our existing
> Extreme Black Diamond switch backbone. Right now the choices are to
> use Force10 as a single provider, or Juniper routes with Cisco (or
> Force10) functioning as a port aggregation switch.
>
> Is anyone here willing to be a reference either for or against using
> Force10 as both port aggregation and border routing? I'd happily buy
> you a beer/tea/poison-of-choice to hear about the scorch marks :-)
>
> --
> Jo Rhett
> senior geek
> Silicon Valley Colocation
>
>
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> force10-nsp mailing list
> force10-nsp at puck.nether.net
> https://puck.nether.net/mailman/listinfo/force10-nsp
>

willing to be reference for or against Force10? [ In reply to ]

jrhett at svcolo

Jan 10, 2007, 9:01 AM

Post #3 of 5 (6454 views)

Permalink

Andy Myers wrote:
> We've encountered some buffering issues when data transits
> from higher speed (1 and 10 gig) to lower speed links (100 meg).

Can you go into more detail on these buffering issues?

Are these just part of the nature of that problem, or something that the
S50 is handling sub-optimally compared to other gear?

--
Jo Rhett
senior geek
Silicon Valley Colocation

willing to be reference for or against Force10? [ In reply to ]

david.rodgers at sun

Jan 23, 2007, 10:50 PM

Post #4 of 5 (6457 views)

Permalink

Jo Rhett <jrhett <at> svcolo.com> writes:

>
> We are evaluating several architectures to replace our existing
> Extreme Black Diamond switch backbone. Right now the choices are to
> use Force10 as a single provider, or Juniper routes with Cisco (or
> Force10) functioning as a port aggregation switch.
>
> Is anyone here willing to be a reference either for or against using
> Force10 as both port aggregation and border routing? I'd happily buy
> you a beer/tea/poison-of-choice to hear about the scorch marks
>

We are using alot of force10 gear these days and having pretty good luck. We're
using Cisco's at the perimeter and E1200s at the core for port aggregation with
both the 90 port minirj21 blades and the 10Ge blades.

I'd be happy to answer any specific questions you might have.

willing to be reference for or against Force10? [ In reply to ]

jrhett at svcolo

Jan 24, 2007, 8:05 AM

Post #5 of 5 (6437 views)

Permalink

>> Is anyone here willing to be a reference either for or against using
>> Force10 as both port aggregation and border routing? I'd happily buy
>> you a beer/tea/poison-of-choice to hear about the scorch marks
>
> We are using alot of force10 gear these days and having pretty good luck. We're
> using Cisco's at the perimeter and E1200s at the core for port aggregation with
> both the 90 port minirj21 blades and the 10Ge blades.

If you're using them for port aggregation then it wasn't relevant to my
question, sorry! The question concerned using them at the border.

Anyway, the PO was already cut last week so it's a done deal :-)

--
Jo Rhett
senior geek
Silicon Valley Colocation