[188918] in North American Network Operators' Group
Re: Arista Routing Solutions
daemon@ATHENA.MIT.EDU (Colton Conor)
Sun Apr 24 12:08:51 2016
X-Original-To: nanog@nanog.org
In-Reply-To: <CAAeewD9kTg5eQCi-Z8zOBmGL5ULr3XcfmMd-paROOi=joC8xbA@mail.gmail.com>
Date: Sun, 24 Apr 2016 11:08:47 -0500
From: Colton Conor <colton.conor@gmail.com>
To: Saku Ytti <saku@ytti.fi>
Cc: nanog list <nanog@nanog.org>
Errors-To: nanog-bounces@nanog.org
Saku,
I guess you are right the QFX10002-36Q is probably a better comparison. But
let's be honest, Juniper is not going to sell a QFX10002-36Q for less than
$20k like Arista will do for a semi- similar box. Even with a high discount
(like 90 percent off list), the Juniper QFX10002-36Q at $360k list price
comes nowhere close on the price point. Cisco, Juniper, ALU, etc are all
not going to see a low cost high density fixed switch because that would
cannibalize on their sales on the larger platforms. I really think Arista
is kind of unique here as they don't have another routing platform to
cannibalize, so they are competitively pricing their platform.
So I guess the question becomes, what features are missing that Arista does
not currently have? They seems to be adding more and more features, and
taking more market share. Here is a list of features supported:
https://www.arista.com/en/support/product-documentation/supported-features
I have not personally used Arista myself, but I like what I am seeing as
far as price point, company culture, and repruatation in the market place.
I know their switching is solid, but I am not sure about their routing.
Arista claims to have much, much faster BGP convergence time than all the
other vendors.
On Sat, Apr 23, 2016 at 1:20 PM, Saku Ytti <saku@ytti.fi> wrote:
> 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
>
