Arista Routing Solutions
paras at protrafsolutions.com
Tue Apr 26 17:04:31 UTC 2016
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 <rwoolleynanog at gmail.com>
> 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.conor at gmail.com>
> > Saku,
> > I guess you are right the QFX10002-36Q is probably a better comparison.
> > let's be honest, Juniper is not going to sell a QFX10002-36Q for less
> > $20k like Arista will do for a semi- similar box. Even with a high
> > (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
> > not currently have? They seems to be adding more and more features, and
> > taking more market share. Here is a list of features supported:
> > 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
> > 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 at ytti.fi> wrote:
> > > On 23 April 2016 at 10:52, Tom Hill <tom at ninjabadger.net> wrote:
> > > > In broad strokes: for your money you're either getting port density,
> > > > 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
> > >
ProTraf Solutions, LLC
Enterprise DDoS Mitigation
More information about the NANOG