Just wanted to interject, the port density of the Arista switches is quite impressive, especially considering the price point they're at.
On Tue, Apr 26, 2016 at 12:46 PM, Ryan Woolley <rwoolleyna...@gmail.com> wrote: > While the QFX in general is similar to Jericho-based platforms, I think the > QFX10002 is perhaps not an ideal comparison. At 100G, there is a > significant density penalty on that platform, as you can use all 36 ports > at 40G, but only 12 ports at 100G. > > BGP convergence in the newer EOS releases is indeed very, very fast. > > On Sun, Apr 24, 2016 at 12:08 PM, Colton Conor <colton.co...@gmail.com> > wrote: > > > 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 <s...@ytti.fi> wrote: > > > > > On 23 April 2016 at 10:52, Tom Hill <t...@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 > > > > > > -- Regards, Paras President ProTraf Solutions, LLC Enterprise DDoS Mitigation
