[177373] in North American Network Operators' Group
Re: Brocade MLX Feedback
daemon@ATHENA.MIT.EDU (Jeff Sorrels)
Wed Jan 14 15:17:54 2015
X-Original-To: nanog@nanog.org
Date: Wed, 14 Jan 2015 14:17:42 -0600
From: Jeff Sorrels <jlsorrels@kanren.net>
To: nanog@nanog.org
In-Reply-To: <49EE1A35457387418410F97564A3752B013663B7F7@MSG6.westman.int>
Errors-To: nanog-bounces@nanog.org
Graham,
We have several Brocades - including XMR, CER, and CES devices. Their
convergence is excellent, even with several full v4 and v6 tables, and
was much faster than other platforms (I'm looking at you MXs...). In
terms of TCAM and convergence, best bang for the buck as they say.
One 'gotcha' we discovered: Brocade does not have, as per our last
discussion with them, BGP FlowSpec on the road map. That was a problem
for us, but YMMV.
Cheers,
Jeff
On 1/14/2015 1:10 PM, Graham Johnston wrote:
> We are looking at Brocade MLX routers to act as Internet edge routers. They will initially handle two to four full tables, plus peering on an IX. The price is certainly attractive. We are coming from Cisco 7600 series devices. Can anyone comment about their use of them? Are you happy with them? Any gotchas? Particularly we are interested in convergence time to full FIB population.
>
> Thanks,
> Graham Johnston
> Network Planner
> Westman Communications Group
> 204.717.2829
> johnstong@westmancom.com<mailto:johnstong@westmancom.com>
> P think green; don't print this email.
>
--
Jeff Sorrels
Network Administrator
KanREN, Inc
jlsorrels@kanren.net
785-856-9820, #2
