[131272] in North American Network Operators' Group
RE: Recommendations for Metro-Ethernet Equipment
daemon@ATHENA.MIT.EDU (Brandon Kim)
Thu Oct 21 19:44:12 2010
From: Brandon Kim <brandon.kim@brandontek.com>
To: <merkel@metalink.net>, <nanog@nanog.org>
Date: Thu, 21 Oct 2010 19:44:01 -0400
In-Reply-To: <042e01cb7152$f285e7f0$d791b7d0$@net>
Errors-To: nanog-bounces+nanog.discuss=bloom-picayune.mit.edu@nanog.org
We use quite a bit of extreme switches. I personally don't have anything ag=
ainst them other than their purple color
and that I don't really know their IOS that well. But to be fair=2C they ha=
ve worked just fine.....
In the future I hope we can migrate over to cisco switches because I'm bias=
..... =3D)
> From: merkel@metalink.net
> To: nanog@nanog.org
> Subject: RE: Recommendations for Metro-Ethernet Equipment
> Date: Thu=2C 21 Oct 2010 15:05:37 -0400
>=20
> Thanks to everyone who responded. Just got done talking with Extreme whic=
h
> no one really mentioned. Seems like decent gear reasonably priced. Anyone
> care to comment on them specifically or have them used them a metro Ether=
net
> build?=20
>=20
>=20
> =3D=3D=3D=3D=3D
> Eric Merkel
> MetaLINK Technologies=2C Inc.
> Email: merkel at metalink.net
>=20
>=20
> -----Original Message-----
> From: Dan Armstrong [mailto:dan@beanfield.com]=20
> Sent: 2010-10-20 19:50
> To: Ramanpreet Singh
> Cc: Jason Lixfeld=3B nanog@nanog.org
> Subject: Re: Recommendations for Metro-Ethernet Equipment
>=20
> I think that's what Jason just said. :-)
>=20
>=20
>=20
>=20
> On 2010-10-20=2C at 5:24 PM=2C Ramanpreet Singh wrote:
>=20
> > 7600's/ASR 1k
> >=20
> > Have you looked in to Ciso ME 3600X/ME 3800X series?
> >=20
> > Without a bias these are the top notch products in the market for Metro=
E.
> >=20
> > -Raman
> >=20
> > On Wed=2C Oct 20=2C 2010 at 12:57 PM=2C Jason Lixfeld <jason@lixfeld.ca=
> wrote:
> >> On 2010-10-20=2C at 11:24 AM=2C Eric Merkel wrote:
> >>=20
> >>> Any suggestions=2C success or horror stories are appreciated. =3B)
> >>=20
> >> I've been going through pretty much the same exercise looking for a
> decent PE for almost two years. Our requirements were for a PE device th=
at
> had between 12-24 ports (in a perfect world=2C mixed mode 10/100/1000 cop=
per +
> SFP)=2C 10G uplinks=2C EoMPLS=2C MPLS VPN=2C DHCP server=2C port-protect/=
UNI (or
> similar) capabilities=2C DC power and a small footprint (1RU)
> >>=20
> >> Of all the ones we looked at (Juniper=2C Cisco=2C Extreme=2C Brocade=
=2C MRV=2C
> Alcatel) initially=2C MRV was the only contender. The rest either didn't=
have
> a product=2C or their offering didn't meet various points within our crit=
eria.
> >>=20
> >> As such=2C we bought a bunch of MRVs in early 2009 and after four mont=
hs of
> trial and error=2C we yanked every single one out of the network. From a
> physical perspective=2C the box was perfect. Port density was perfect=2C
> mixed-mode ports=2C promised a 10G uplink product soon=2C size was perfec=
t=2C
> power was perfect=2C we thought we had it nailed. Unfortunately there ar=
e no
> words to describe how terrible the software was. The CLI took a little
> getting used to=2C which is pretty much par for the course when you're de=
aling
> with a new vendor=2C but the code itself was just absolutely broken=2C
> everywhere. Duplex issues=2C LDP constantly crashing taking the box with=
it=2C
> OSPF issues=2C the list went on and on. To their credit=2C they flew eng=
ineers
> up from the US and they were quite committed to making stuff work=2C but =
at
> the end of the day=2C they just couldn't make it go. We pulled the plug =
in
> May 2009 and I haven't heard a thing about their product since then=2C so
> maybe they've got it all together.
> >>=20
> >> While meeting with Juniper a few months later about a different projec=
t=2C
> they said they had a product that might fit our needs. The EX4200. As
> such=2C we had a few of these loaned to our lab for a few months to put
> through their paces=2C from a features and interoperability perspective. =
They
> work[1] and they seem to work well. The show stopper was provisioning[1]
> and size. The box is massive=2C albeit it is still 1U.
> >>=20
> >> [1] (I'm not a Juniper guy=2C so my recollection on specific terms and
> jargon may be a bit off kilter) they only support ccc=2C which makes
> provisioning an absolute nightmare. From my experience with Cisco and MR=
V=2C
> you only have to configure the EoMPLS vc. On the EX4200=2C you have to c=
reate
> the LSPs as well. To get a ccc working=2C the JunOS code block was far l=
arger
> and much more involved per vc than the single line Cisco equivalent. To
> create the LSPs was=2C I believe=2C two more equally large sized code blo=
cks.
> At the end of the day=2C it was just too involved. We needed something
> simpler.
> >>=20
> >> About the same time that we started to evaluate the EX4200=2C Cisco ha=
d
> pitched us on their (then alpha) Whales platform. It looked promising (M=
RV
> still had the best form factor) and we expressed our interest in getting =
a
> beta unit in as soon as we were able to. This is now known as the ME3600
> and ME3800 platform and we've been testing a beta unit in our lab for the
> past few months. This is the platform we have chosen. It's not perfect=
=2C
> but our gripes have more to do with form factor (it's 1RU=2C but it's a b=
it
> deeper than what we'd like) and port densities (no mixed mode ports) than
> software or features. We've been pretty pleased with it's feature set an=
d
> performance=2C but this hasn't seen any real world action=2C so who knows=
how
> that will turn out.
> >>=20
> >> If you're asking more about a P router or P/PE hybrid=2C we've also ju=
st
> ordered a few ASR9000s under try-and-buy as P/PEs to close up the chains =
of
> ME3600s that will start to be deployed in our remote sites. A Juniper MX
> would certainly work well here too=2C and it seems to interoperate rather=
well
> with the ME3600s=2C so that's certainly an option=2C but for us=2C we thi=
nk it
> will work more in our favor to go with the ASRs in the core=2C but if not=
=2C
> we'd ship them back under the try-and-buy and get Junipers instead.
> >>=20
> >> Hope that helps.
> >>=20
> >=20
>=20
>=20
>=20
>=20
>=20
=
