nanog mailing list archives
Re: Force10 Gear - Opinions
From: Owen DeLong <owen () delong com>
Date: Mon, 1 Sep 2008 09:20:22 -0700
Sort of... There are still some notable differences in behavior. Owen On Sep 1, 2008, at 5:47 AM, jim deleskie wrote:
The S series runs the same FTOS as the C and E series, as of a number of months ago. The only exception is the 2410, ie all 10G ports L2 only. -jimOn Mon, Sep 1, 2008 at 3:19 AM, Greg VILLAIN <nanog () grrrrreg net> wrote:On Aug 26, 2008, at 6:46 PM, Owen DeLong wrote:Another thing to note (as near as I can tell, this applies to all vendors). All line cards will function only at the lowest common denominator line card CAM level.IOW, if you have single, dual, and quad-cam cards in your F10 chassis,they'll all act like single-CAM cards. OwenI'd have to second that. This is a very annoying fact, that you will findmentioned nowhere.What I also used to dislike is the lack of verbosity of 'show features' -but that was back a year ago.Btw, you absolutely want to avoid the S series, the CLI is a pain, and isnot the same as the E or C series, and lacks many features.Price/10G port is interesting though, but not as much as with Arastra, ifthat's switching you're into. (never tested any such kits though...) My own 2 cents. Greg VILLAIN
Current thread:
- Re: Force10 Gear - Opinions jim deleskie (Sep 01)
- Re: Force10 Gear - Opinions Owen DeLong (Sep 01)
- <Possible follow-ups>
- Re: Force10 Gear - Opinions Jo Rhett (Sep 03)
- RE: Force10 Gear - Opinions James Jun (Sep 03)
- Re: Force10 Gear - Opinions Jo Rhett (Sep 03)
- Re: Force10 Gear - Opinions Rubens Kuhl Jr. (Sep 03)
- Cisco uRPF failures Jo Rhett (Sep 04)
- Re: Cisco uRPF failures Anton Kapela (Sep 06)
- Re: Cisco uRPF failures Christopher Morrow (Sep 06)
- Re: Cisco uRPF failures Jo Rhett (Sep 11)
- Re: Cisco uRPF failures Sam Stickland (Sep 07)
- Re: Cisco uRPF failures Saku Ytti (Sep 08)
- RE: Force10 Gear - Opinions James Jun (Sep 03)