Archive

Archive for October, 2010

An NDA Can Keep Bad Decisions Away

October 20, 2010 1 comment

Over the past year, I have seen some interesting presentations from vendors showing me some things that they have on their future roadmap. Some of these things have already been released to the public. I’m still waiting on the rest. All of this was a result of having non-disclosure agreements or NDA’s in place. The vendors agree to show us some of their stuff that is coming to market soon on the assumption that we will not release this information to anyone else. While I do enjoy knowing about things before they hit the market, I sometimes feel bad for companies that don’t have access to this information. Not only that, I often wish I had access to all vendor product roadmaps. Let’s face it. From the network hardware/software standpoint, we generally do business with only a handful of vendors. I say that as someone who works in a corporate environment. If you are a consultant, that doesn’t necessarily hold true as you may sell a wide variety of hardware and software.

If your dealings with companies are limited to a select few, those companies have a vested interest in making sure you stay with them. One of the ways to do that is to give you a better view into their product cycle so that you know what is coming. Look at the switch market for example. The number of vendors offering products in that space is growing and growing. I recently spent a LOT of time comparing 10Gig aggregation switches between 6 vendors. What if the vendor I use today had a platform that was average or below average in terms of 10Gig capabilities? If I had a hard requirement for a certain number of 10Gig ports and it had to be contained to 1 chassis, my choices are really going to be driven by 10Gig port density. It could be some other factor like power consumption or even chassis size. It doesn’t really matter. As long as my usual switch vendor cannot meet that requirement, I am going to go outside and look for another vendor. If I am dead set on staying with that vendor, I am going to change my requirements, To me this does not seem like a viable option unless it would cause unbelievable pain and suffering to introduce another vendor into the network. If that is the case, you probably need to re-think the whole single vendor strategy. Then again, if that single vendor works for you, then go for it. It’s your network and we each have to make the decisions that serve our company and customers best.

Back to the fictional switch problem. What if I am the incumbent vendor and I know you have a need that I cannot fill today, but will be able to fill that need in a couple of months, or even a year from now? Should I tell you even if nobody else knows about it? This is where the NDA comes into play. If you have done a bunch of research and are looking at alternatives to the incumbent, your mind might be changed if you happen to know something better is coming. Maybe it is far better than every other vendor’s current products you have been looking at. Maybe it is on par with the replacement vendor you have been looking at. Can you wait that long?

After seeing the new shiny thing that is coming out soon, you may decide to stick with your existing vendor. However, who is to say that the other vendors won’t be coming out with even better hardware/software around the same time or a month or two after? This is the point in which I find myself wishing I had access to all the vendor’s product road maps. I know some vendors will do an NDA on the notion that it will get them a sale, but I don’t know that I am going to be able to spend a bunch of time with every vendor to the point in which an NDA can be put in place. Perhaps it is best to bring in the consultants/integrators that sell products from a number of different companies. I would suspect they have some sort of idea when it comes to the future direction of certain product lines. Or maybe not. They might be in the same boat as I am.

The last thing you want to do is buy a product and have an even better solution appear a week later. I do think that most vendors will let you know that a better product is coming rather than lose the sale as long as the dollar amount is high enough. I don’t think company X is going to reveal a whole lot about their future road map if the net gain is a couple thousand dollars. Then again, if the salesperson has had a REALLY bad quarter all bets are off, but at that point you can smell the desperation in their sales pitch and I tend to be put off by that. That leads me to the thought that you really have to consider a wide range of factors when dealing with vendors. To me, the product has to meet the technical requirements above all. After that, cost is important. Right along with cost is the experience the vendor will give you. What are the hardware/software support capabilities of that vendor? What is the direction of the company? How long has the company been in business? If it is a recent startup(ie less than 2 or 3 years), who are the people running the R&D for these products? Are they known in the sector they are doing business in? In other words, if they sell security solutions, are they using experienced security professionals to develop the products or is this strictly an “academic” operation in which someone had a decent idea and got some venture capital funding? Granted, you can’t always figure all of that stuff out, but if you can, it sure helps when the decision making time comes.

To sum it all up, I think the smart vendors are going to tell their customers what is coming and when they can expect to see it for sale. It helps people like me plan for things down the road. I’m more interested in a vendor that is constantly updating their technology as opposed to one who releases new products with lesser frequency than leap years occur. When it comes to NDA’s, I don’t think the size of the customer should matter either. Small companies can get big relatively quick in this age of acquisitions and mergers. IT professionals DO talk to each other and tend to trust each other’s opinions MORE than a vendor paid “performance test” by an “independent lab”. If you are a vendor and want to show me your road map, I promise not to tell anyone outside of my company. 🙂 I don’t even want you to buy me lunch. I might just put pictures of your hardware up in my cubicle and drool over it all day until I my manager lets me buy it.

Categories: vendors Tags: ,

Nexus 7010 Competitors – Part 2

October 15, 2010 5 comments

**** Please note that these are my own thoughts and observations and should not in any way be taken to be the opinion(s) of my employer. Additionally, this is a rather long post, so please bear with me. I promise not to waste your time by babbling incessantly about non relevant things.

Finally! After many hours spent sifting through vendor websites and reading various documents, I have finished my comparison. If there’s one thing I came away with in this process, it’s that some vendors are better than others at providing specifics regarding their platforms. By far, Juniper was the best at providing in depth documentation on their hardware and software. Although Cisco has a ton of information out there about the Nexus 7000, I found that a lot of it was more on the architecture/design side and less on the actual specifics of the platform itself. Some vendors still hide documentation behind a login that only works with a valid support contract. In my opinion, that’s not a good thing. I think most people research products before they decide to buy, so why hide things that are going to cause roadblocks for people like myself trying to do some initial research? I’ve read MANY brochures, white papers, data sheets, third party “independent” tests(meaning a vendor paid for a canned report that gives a big thumbs up to their product), and other marketing documents in the past couple of weeks. I did not actively seek out conversations with sales people in regards to these products. I did have a couple of conversations around these products and not all the people I talked to were straight sales people. Some were very technical. However, I wanted to go off the things that the websites were advertising. Once the list is narrowed down to 2 or 3 platforms, the REAL work begins with an even deeper dive into the platforms.

I wish I could display the whole thing on this website and have it look pretty. Unfortunately, I don’t know how to do that and make it look nice. Remember, I get paid for networking stuff and not my web skills! In consideration of that, I have attached a PDF file of my comparison chart. I have the original in Excel format, but WordPress wouldn’t allow me to upload it. If you want a copy, I can certainly e-mail it to you. You can send me your e-mail address via a direct message in Twitter. I can be found here.

What IS included in the spreadsheet.

I would love to say that I did all of this work for the benefit of my fellow network engineers, but I would be lying if I said that. I built this out of a specific need that my employer has or will have in the coming months/years. Due to that, some of the features that were important to me may not be important to you. If you find yourself wondering why I included it, just chalk it up to it being something that I considered a
requirement. Having said that, it would be selfish not to share this information with you, so take it for what it’s worth.

When it comes to the actual numbers of things like fan trays and power supplies, I tend to build out the chassis to the full amount it will hold. If it can take 8 power supplies, I will probably use 8. Same with fabric
modules. I like to plan with the belief that I will fully populate the chassis at some point, so I want to have enough power, throughput, and cooling on board to handle any new blades. All chassis examined have the
ability to run on less than the maximum number of power supplies.

When it comes to throughput rates, you have to distinguish between full duplex numbers and half duplex numbers. They don’t always specify which is which, so you have to dig through a lot of documentation to figure out what they are really saying. Thankfully marketing people tend to favor the larger numbers so more often than not, the number given is full duplex. In the case of slot bandwidth, I used the half duplex speed. The backplane numbers are all full duplex.

What IS NOT included in the spreadsheet and why.

If I were to include every single thing these switches support, the spreadsheet would be 10 times bigger than it already is. There are quite a few things that I consider to be basic requirements. These basic things
were left out of the sheet to avoid cluttering it up with things you probably already know. For example, does the switch support IPv6? This should be a resounding yes. If it doesn’t, why in the world would I even
consider it? The same can be said with routing protocols. They all should support OSPFv2 and RIPv2 at a minimum. Most, if not all support IS-IS and BGP as well. It is also worth pointing out that I may not even need this switch to run layer 3. I am looking for 10Gig aggregation and am not necessarily concerned about anything other than layer 2. All of these switches also support QoS. Perhaps they do things a little differently
between each switch, but the basics are still the basics and I don’t really need a billion different options when it comes to QoS. That may change in a few years, but for now, I am not looking at running anything
other than non-storage traffic over these switches.

I think you see my point by now. I could go on and on about what isn’t included. If it is something well known like SSH for management purposes, I don’t need to include it in the list. It’s a given.

Special note on the TOR(Top of Rack) fabric extension.

While I primarily need 10Gig aggregation, another bonus is the ability to have 1Gig copper aggregation as well. However, I don’t want it all coming back to the chassis itself. The Nexus 7010 has the ability through the Nexus 5000’s(of which I already own several) to attach Nexus 2000 series fabric extenders that function as top of rack switches(although it’s not REALLY a switch). This is a nice bonus feature as I can aggregate a lot of copper connections back to 1 chassis without all the spaghetti wiring that is commonly seen in 6500’s and 4500’s. In the case of Brocade and Force10, they actually have the TOR extensions as nothing more than MRJ-21 patch panels. With 1 cable(which is the width of a pencil) per 6 copper ports, the amount of wiring coming back to the chassis is reduced tremendously.

Additionally, there is no power consumption at the top of the rack like there is with the Nexus 2000’s and it is a direct link to the top of rack connections unlike the Nexus model where I have an intermediate 5000 series switch in between.

One final note. The HP/H3C A12508 is listed on the HP site as the A12508, but when you click into the actual product page, it is listed as the S12508. These terms can be mixed and matched and mean the same chassis. I have chosen to use A12508 as the model number as much as possible in this post, but my previous post that mentioned the various switches used the letter “S” instead of “A”.

I plan on posting a few more thoughts on this process as it pertains to specific platforms. I was awed by several of the platforms, not just by the hardware itself, but by the approach the company is taking to the data center in general. Any of these platforms will do the job I need them to do. Some will do that job a lot better than others. As for cost, I have only seen numbers on a few of the platforms. That’s something that is important, but not the most important. You can read my previous post on this for more clarification on what my thought process is.

Remember that I am not claiming to be an expert in regards to any of these platforms. I have done many hours of research on them, but there is a chance that some information in this PDF file will be wrong. If you see any glaring errors, please let me know. I promise you won’t hurt my feelings. If anything is marked “Unknown”, rest assured that I looked at every possible piece of literature on the website that I could reasonably find. If you managed to read this far in the post, the file is below. Enjoy!

Nexus 7010 Comparison – PDF File

*****Update – The Juniper 8200 series does support multi-chassis link aggregation. It just requires another piece to make it work. The XRE200 External Routing Engine gives the 8200 this capability. Thanks to Abner Germanow from Juniper for clarifying that!

Nexus 7010 Competitors

October 5, 2010 6 comments

I have an increasing need for 10Gig connectivity. Although I may have enough ports today, I have to plan for the future. While I can easily buy some more Nexus 5000 series switches, I would rather have a more capable platform. As a heavy user of Cisco hardware, the logical choice was to use the Nexus 7000 series line. It is a platform that I can grow into over time. I don’t need the big 7018, so the 7010 will suffice. My company has a great relationship with Cisco and our sales rep and local engineer are top notch. No hard selling on their part so the relationship is, in my opinion, a very good one.

Having said that, I also have to point out that I have an obligation to my company to ensure the best product is selected. It would be irresponsible of me to make a technical decision of six digit magnitude and have it come up short in features. I need to make sure the product we select is the best fit for our particular needs. That doesn’t mean the Nexus 7010 is the wrong device. For all I know it will be the best thing for us. Of course, I still have to do my due diligence.

Over the past several weeks, I have been looking over some of the competition. Granted, I still have to spend a lot more time looking at Nexus 7010 competitors, so I am nowhere near done. I’ve been really busy with other things, so I haven’t been able to dedicate as much time as I thought I would to figuring this out. What I have done so far is narrow down a list of vendors and the appropriate product that can compete with the Nexus 7010. Here’s a short list of the features I am looking to compare:

1. 10Gig port count across the entire chassis.
2. 10Gig port/blade/module oversubscription rates. (Some products may not have this issue.)
3. Size of chassis.
4. Power consumption.
5. Layer 2 features(STP, TRILL, proprietary)
6. Layer 3 features(Standard based protocols, proprietary protocols)
7. Cost(Not the main driver, but it is a factor to consider after the technical merits.)
8. Product age(Is it a new platform, or has it been around for more than a year or two?)
9. Focus of the company
10. Size of the company
11. Support structure of the company
12. Code updates(Is there a defined release cycle?)
13. Availability of documentation from the vendor.
14. Connectivity options other than 10Gig(1Gig copper ports or some type of TOR integration aka Nexus 2000’s?)

Obviously there are going to be other things to consider. I also was very vague on the L2 and L3 feature requirements. That was on purpose. As I go through this process, I will be able to elaborate more on the particular L2/3 features that are needed vs those that are available.

Here’s the models I am comparing:

Cisco Nexus 7010
Brocade NetIron MLX 16
Juniper EX8216
Force10 E1200
Arista 7500
HP S12508 – This was recently changed from the S9512E as it was recommended by someone from HP that it was a better comparison to the Nexus 7010.

It is pretty hard if not downright impossible to find competing platforms that have exactly the same specs. I tried to find the closest match in terms of 10Gig port capability since that is the main driver behind this project.

More posts to come soon on this. I am still trying to decide if I want to do a post on each platform individually or do a few posts focusing on certain features that they all have in common. Any thoughts on this are appreciated.