[188915] in North American Network Operators' Group
RE: Arista Routing Solutions
daemon@ATHENA.MIT.EDU (Keith Medcalf)
Sun Apr 24 08:14:44 2016
X-Original-To: nanog@nanog.org
Date: Sun, 24 Apr 2016 08:14:40 -0400
In-Reply-To: <CAAeewD9kTg5eQCi-Z8zOBmGL5ULr3XcfmMd-paROOi=joC8xbA@mail.gmail.com>
From: "Keith Medcalf" <kmedcalf@dessus.com>
To: "nanog list" <nanog@nanog.org>
Errors-To: nanog-bounces@nanog.org
High Touch / Low Touch
Is this a measure of the amount of fiddle diddling required to get the chip=
to work as documented, or is it some other kind of code?
For example a "High Touch" chip needs lots of fiddle farting because it was=
designed by a moron and every possible thing that can be programmed incorr=
ectly is programmed incorrectly, whereas in a "Low Touch" chip all the defa=
ults are already set to the most useful and rational setting so that it can=
be used without touching it to fix all the defects?
Perhaps it is a measure of the babysitting required while the chip is runni=
ng. "High Touch" chips require constant attention, nappy changes, positive=
re-inforcement of the settings, etc., while operating because they are inh=
erently unreliable and badly designed whereas "Low Touch" chips once set up=
just work and require little ongoing supervision unless you want to change=
something?
Or is it just a strange translation for functionality (as in High End / Low=
End)?
> -----Original Message-----
> From: NANOG [mailto:nanog-bounces@nanog.org] On Behalf Of Saku Ytti
> Sent: Saturday, 23 April, 2016 14:21
> To: Tom Hill
> Cc: nanog list
> Subject: Re: Arista Routing Solutions
>
> On 23 April 2016 at 10:52, Tom Hill <tom@ninjabadger.net> wrote:
> > In broad strokes: for your money you're either getting port density, or
> > more features per port. The only difference here is that there's
> > suddenly more TCAM on the device, and I still don't see the above
> > changing too drastically.
>
> Yeah OP is comparing high touch chip (MX104) to low touch chip
> (Jericho) that is not fair comparison. And cost is what customer is
> willing to pay, regardless of sticker on the box. No one will pay
> significant mark-up for another sticker, I've never seen in RFP
> significant differences in comparable products.
>
> Fairer comparison would be QFX10k, instead of MX104. QFX10k is AFAIK
> only product in this segment which is not using Jericho. If this is
> competitive advantage or risk, jury is still out, I lean towards
> competitive advantage, mainly due to its memory design.
>
> --
> ++ytti
