we have 1100ahx2 and ahx4 at all the sites. these are just for switching and port aggregation mostly. we vlan isolate the aggregate data into the router
On Fri, Oct 18, 2019 at 10:22 AM Nate Burke <n...@blastcomm.com> wrote: > I can't think of specific problems with them. Maybe I've had problems > like Adam, but spread over years I don't remember. Just keep in mind their > use case. If you're doing simple routing at a site that's moving ~100mb, > then they're probably fine. If you want full throughput of a couple 1G > 820C radio, you'd probably want something else (when routing, they would > probably L2 just fine). I've always used them as routers. > > On 10/18/2019 10:10 AM, Adam Moffett wrote: > > Like Nate, we had a few of them and had no problems. Then we deployed 25 > or 30 of them to small sites. Most of the time they just sit there and > run. Over the past few years we've just had a few scattered instances > where we had to reboot them when traffic wouldn't move to one port. > > There's one at a hub site with several backhauls plugged into it....that > one actually needed a reboot a couple of times so we replaced it. Then it > needed a reboot again a couple more times since then. > > These events are scattered over 3-4 years so I'm not saying they're > UN-reliable, they're just not critical infrastructure level of reliable. > > -Adam > > > On 10/18/2019 10:55 AM, Adam Moffett wrote: > > I have some opinions on this. > > 1) Yes they're cheap. > > 2) They run ROS, so if a newb comes along who doesn't realize that this is > switch hardware and it has a crappy CPU, then that newb might try to make > firewall rules and VPN tunnels and other such router functionality in the > config. That will be a mistake because the CPU is weak and you will get > crappy performance. Leave it as an L2 switch and the performance is > perfectly fine. > > 3) Configuring L2 functions on the switch menu in ROS is obtuse. I've > messed with VLAN's, port isolation, and port mirroring. It's all strangely > difficult to understand and use. > > 4) I've had them just decide one day that they'll stop forwarding packets > to one or more interfaces and then "fixed" them with a reboot. I've also > had them sit there and do their thing as a basic managed switch for several > years with no issue. > > I would not use them for critical infrastructure anymore, but a switch > with a small form factor and extended operating temperature spec generally > costs several times what the CRS costs so I'd still consider it for the > right circumstance. I can't tell you what the right circumstance is. > That's your call. > > > On 10/18/2019 10:39 AM, Steve Jones wrote: > > We usually use the lower end HP procurve switches, we have had zero > problems with them over the years, but now theyre office connect and seem > that all the 24 port ones are going deep instead of 10 inches. > > The CRS stuff is 1/2 to 1/3 the cost of comparable HP switches. > > Have any of you degenerates used these very much and stayed with them? We > route with mikrotiks so we are aware of the mikrotik funky stuff, the cost > offsets those > > > > > -- > AF mailing list > AF@af.afmug.com > http://af.afmug.com/mailman/listinfo/af_af.afmug.com >
-- AF mailing list AF@af.afmug.com http://af.afmug.com/mailman/listinfo/af_af.afmug.com
