All other Cisco networking related discussions.
User avatar
Vito_Corleone
Moderator
Posts:
9847
Joined:
Mon Apr 07, 2008 10:38 am
Certs:
CCNP RS, CCNP DC, CCDP, CCIP

Re: Cisco Catalyst 6509E vs Nexus 7009

Thu Apr 19, 2012 7:49 pm

The sup2 is coming out, but it's not a necessity for most. It gives you more VDCs and FCoE. The M2 line cards are out, or coming out. Nothing too crazy there either.
http://blog.alwaysthenetwork.com

Otanx
Post Whore
Posts:
1192
Joined:
Wed Sep 01, 2010 3:37 pm
Certs:
CCNP, CEH

Re: Cisco Catalyst 6509E vs Nexus 7009

Thu Apr 19, 2012 10:05 pm

dlploh04 wrote:Otanx,

on the cat 6509e with quad-sup - the failed supervisor dies and the standby comes online after the entire chasis reloads - it provides a deterministic outage window measured in minutes and you are back online. Replacing failed supervisor can be done without any priming or commands.

on the cat 6509e with quad-sup - the plan is later this year to have SSO within the chassis so can do upgrades hitless.

on the nexus 7009 with quad-sup - the failed supervisor dies and standby comes online without any reloading -completely hitless. it also already allows for hitless upgrades.

The bandwidth performance on the Nexus 7009 really does seem to be more than we need or will ever use - but at same time - I do not want to recommend and purchase a 6509e that will be announced end of sale or discontinued within 4-5 years - our partner says the 4500e/6500e should continue to be sold until 2020. I understand Cisco Live is in a couple months and maybe the 7009 will even be upgraded with newer sup's and line cards, and make the 7009 purchase look bad timed...so much to decide on... :|


Thanks for that. We just ordered two 6509-V-Es with the 2T sup cards, and I was starting to worry I had missed something. We discussed going to the 7Ks but nobody I work with has experience with Nexus, and we had a tight budget. So single sup 6509s in VSS. The eFSU with VSS will work for us. It reduces throughput by half, but that isn't a concern, and we don't have anything single homed into the pair. We can wait for our NDA replacement to show up if we have a failure. Sub-second failover is enough for us, and will be a major improvement over the current design. For our environment I can't justify the cost of two more 2Ts.

As for the EoL I am not too worried. 2T was just released last year, and I don't think they are going to kill it that quickly. Even after EoL is anounced you still have a couple years before end of support. With a five year replacement schedule I shouldn't have a problem. At that point the 7Ks may have matured some more, and I will have some experience with the Nexus stuff.

-Otanx
Stay networked, my friends.

User avatar
ristau5741
Post Whore
Posts:
10315
Joined:
Tue Aug 21, 2007 2:15 pm
Certs:
Instanity

Re: Cisco Catalyst 6509E vs Nexus 7009

Fri Apr 20, 2012 7:47 am

dlploh04 wrote: - our partner says the 4500e/6500e should continue to be sold until 2020.



partner is wrong 4500E were just announced EOL yesterday, end of sale date April 16, 2013

see thread in cisco general forum
viewtopic.php?f=36&t=30613
Tips of the day:
- The human mind is the ultimate creation invention.
- I have so many customers, my customers have customers.
- Sausage time
- POP, stack, and store

dlploh04
New Member
Posts:
15
Joined:
Wed Apr 18, 2012 7:25 pm

Re: Cisco Catalyst 6509E vs Nexus 7009

Fri Apr 20, 2012 7:53 am

ristau5741 wrote:
dlploh04 wrote: - our partner says the 4500e/6500e should continue to be sold until 2020.



partner is wrong 4500E were just announced EOL yesterday, end of sale date April 16, 2013

see thread in cisco general forum
viewtopic.php?f=36&t=30613


I apologize for not being specific. They were referencing the WS-C4507R+E and the WS-C6509-E. These two switches were stated to be sold until 2020.

User avatar
Vito_Corleone
Moderator
Posts:
9847
Joined:
Mon Apr 07, 2008 10:38 am
Certs:
CCNP RS, CCNP DC, CCDP, CCIP

Re: Cisco Catalyst 6509E vs Nexus 7009

Fri Apr 20, 2012 8:35 am

ristau5741 wrote:
dlploh04 wrote: - our partner says the 4500e/6500e should continue to be sold until 2020.



partner is wrong 4500E were just announced EOL yesterday, end of sale date April 16, 2013

see thread in cisco general forum
viewtopic.php?f=36&t=30613


Really?
http://blog.alwaysthenetwork.com

User avatar
mlan
Ultimate Member
Posts:
793
Joined:
Thu Nov 17, 2011 6:09 pm

Re: Cisco Catalyst 6509E vs Nexus 7009

Fri Apr 20, 2012 12:00 pm

dlploh04 wrote:... I do not want to recommend and purchase a 6509e that will be announced end of sale or discontinued within 4-5 years - our partner says the 4500e/6500e should continue to be sold until 2020.


This topic keeps coming up, and a lot of us out there are struggling with this decision. We grilled our Cisco rep on sunset dates for the 6500 series, and they said we could expect 7+ years. Curious as to what other people are hearing from Cisco regarding this.

Good discussion in this thread.

User avatar
ristau5741
Post Whore
Posts:
10315
Joined:
Tue Aug 21, 2007 2:15 pm
Certs:
Instanity

Re: Cisco Catalyst 6509E vs Nexus 7009

Fri Apr 20, 2012 12:03 pm

no doubt they'll do the same as they did for the 4500E
EoL the 6500-E and replace it with a 6500+E
money grubbing grubbers....
Tips of the day:
- The human mind is the ultimate creation invention.
- I have so many customers, my customers have customers.
- Sausage time
- POP, stack, and store

javentre
Post Whore
Posts:
1971
Joined:
Fri Jul 09, 2010 7:38 pm

Re: Cisco Catalyst 6509E vs Nexus 7009

Fri Apr 20, 2012 1:05 pm

ristau5741 wrote:no doubt they'll do the same as they did for the 4500E
EoL the 6500-E and replace it with a 6500+E
money grubbing grubbers....


If you consider that the Sup2T is probably the last Sup for the 6500, and it works in an E chassis, there's no need for them to EOL it in the near future.

WRT the 4500, at some point you do need to update the backplane traces and pinouts; trying to keep a platform up-to-date, but letting yourself be held back by a relatively inexpensive part, is not a wise business choice.
http://networking.ventrefamily.com

just2cool
Member
Posts:
137
Joined:
Fri Dec 24, 2010 12:11 am
Certs:
Expired 350-001

Re: Cisco Catalyst 6509E vs Nexus 7009

Tue Apr 24, 2012 8:12 pm

The 6500 with sup720 will go down as Cisco's best product of all time for a long time, maybe forever. There is no other device in the world that can play both router and switch roles as good as that box can, period. Any Cisco/Juniper/Brocade/HP/Extreme/Dell fanboy will agree. It is deployed everywhere (and consequently everyone is familiar with it), the feature set is massive, and its reliable as hell.

For all those reasons, it made A LOT of money for Cisco. They also know that they are at a limit with the amount of bandwidth they can push through the traces on the chassis, which means sup2T will likely be the last sup as javentre said. It was originally designed as a 100Mb/1Gb device ... so it does 10gig with horrific density.

For that reason, buy the sup2T over the 7K for one of the following 2 reasons, and 2 reasons only:
1) You already have a sup720 and need some more leg room without doing a crazy migration
2) You don't like the ASR9K and you need this device to be more of a router than a switch (the 7K router feature set is limited)

Your Cisco rep knows this, and will push the 6K on you. You will run out of room on that 80gig/slot as soon as you deploy 10gig servers or enough TOR switches, so you better run for the hills while your rep smiles as your boss opens up his wallet for a 7K down the road. The 7K with 550gig/slot will be able to support 10gig servers pretty well -- I know because I'm already in this boat. And 550gig is with today's fabrics -- the chassis can do much more.

Buy the 7K and avoid doing ISSUs. End of discussion.

Also, as for the whole quad sup thing ... I think they're a waste for a routed or vPC layer, considering I've had dual sup crashes before. However, for the access layer (single homed servers/users), then it makes complete sense.

User avatar
Vito_Corleone
Moderator
Posts:
9847
Joined:
Mon Apr 07, 2008 10:38 am
Certs:
CCNP RS, CCNP DC, CCDP, CCIP

Re: Cisco Catalyst 6509E vs Nexus 7009

Tue Apr 24, 2012 8:16 pm

FYI, Cisco gave us a product update today and the 6500 is going to be around for quite awhile. They have some solid features coming in the next year.
http://blog.alwaysthenetwork.com

User avatar
routerdork
Post Whore
Posts:
1521
Joined:
Tue Feb 22, 2011 9:40 am
Certs:
CCNA, MCDST, MCP, A+

Cisco Catalyst 6509E vs Nexus 7009

Tue Apr 24, 2012 8:22 pm

Vito_Corleone wrote:FYI, Cisco gave us a product update today and the 6500 is going to be around for quite awhile. They have some solid features coming in the next year.

How about the 7600's?

User avatar
Vito_Corleone
Moderator
Posts:
9847
Joined:
Mon Apr 07, 2008 10:38 am
Certs:
CCNP RS, CCNP DC, CCDP, CCIP

Re: Cisco Catalyst 6509E vs Nexus 7009

Tue Apr 24, 2012 8:29 pm

These guys didn't touch on it.
http://blog.alwaysthenetwork.com

User avatar
that1guy15
Post Whore
Posts:
3196
Joined:
Thu Apr 29, 2010 6:12 pm
Certs:
CCNP, CCDP, CCIP

Re: Cisco Catalyst 6509E vs Nexus 7009

Wed Apr 25, 2012 8:41 am

Vito_Corleone wrote:FYI, Cisco gave us a product update today and the 6500 is going to be around for quite awhile. They have some solid features coming in the next year.


So does that change your opinion about not deploying 6500s or are you seeing new life in them?
http://blog.movingonesandzeros.net/

Otanx
Post Whore
Posts:
1192
Joined:
Wed Sep 01, 2010 3:37 pm
Certs:
CCNP, CEH

Re: Cisco Catalyst 6509E vs Nexus 7009

Wed Apr 25, 2012 9:06 am

that1guy15 wrote:
Vito_Corleone wrote:FYI, Cisco gave us a product update today and the 6500 is going to be around for quite awhile. They have some solid features coming in the next year.


So does that change your opinion about not deploying 6500s or are you seeing new life in them?


I can't speak for Vito, but his comment made me feel a little better about going with the 6500s.

-Otanx
Stay networked, my friends.

User avatar
Vito_Corleone
Moderator
Posts:
9847
Joined:
Mon Apr 07, 2008 10:38 am
Certs:
CCNP RS, CCNP DC, CCDP, CCIP

Re: Cisco Catalyst 6509E vs Nexus 7009

Wed Apr 25, 2012 2:35 pm

that1guy15 wrote:
Vito_Corleone wrote:FYI, Cisco gave us a product update today and the 6500 is going to be around for quite awhile. They have some solid features coming in the next year.


So does that change your opinion about not deploying 6500s or are you seeing new life in them?


That's a good question. The 6500 will still (probably always) suck for 10g. It's also likely to miss out on some of the coolest features like OTV, FabricPath, etc (which I try to avoid anyway). I think I'll still have a hard time pushing 6500s in the core (and who would ever put them in a DC), but with some of the new stuff, I think I'll definitely use the hell out of them for campus aggregation and the like.

I've been fighting some Nexus quirks for the past few weeks which has left me a little bitter also. If the 6500s could compete at 10g I'd probably back off the Nexus for a year or so.
http://blog.alwaysthenetwork.com

just2cool
Member
Posts:
137
Joined:
Fri Dec 24, 2010 12:11 am
Certs:
Expired 350-001

Re: Cisco Catalyst 6509E vs Nexus 7009

Thu Apr 26, 2012 11:15 am

Vito_Corleone wrote:If the 6500s could compete at 10g I'd probably back off the Nexus for a year or so.

If the 6500 did 550gig/slot, I would personally throw my 7Ks away, as would pretty much everyone. But we all know it will never compete at 10gig.

dlploh04
New Member
Posts:
15
Joined:
Wed Apr 18, 2012 7:25 pm

Re: Cisco Catalyst 6509E vs Nexus 7009

Thu Apr 26, 2012 2:38 pm

imogthe wrote:I'll put down a few words, so feel free to discard them at will.

We've implemented a similar solution with two 7009 switches with F2 modules, 5596UP switches and 2232PP FEXes, and there are a few things to be aware of with regards to the 7k platform in general and the F2 modules in particular.

1) The F2 mainly a High Troughput line card, whereas the M series is for Features. This means that you need to carefully consider what you want to do and figure out if the F2 will do it for you. For example the data sheet says it does NetFlow whereas the latest software specifically says it _doesn't_ do it on the F2. TAC says to wait for 6.1 release in Q2Y12.

2) IPv6 on NX-OS (caveat: on 7009 chassis with F2 module) is missing a few features such as RA priority and suchlike. Not sure if this is coming or not, but it's a bit of a bummer if you wanted to make one chassis the primary unit for a particular VLAN (both v4 and v6).

3) We're currently engaged in a TAC case concerning some problems we're having with HSRP and DHCP relaying - the DHCP discovery is forwarded to the server, but in some cases the reply doesn't reach the client. In this particular case the servers subnets are routed on both 7009 switches but the primary switch for the client VLAN might not be the primary for the servers, causing a degree of asynchronous routing (long story). At the moment it looks like a ARP or layer 2 issue but we're not sure yet.

4) NX-OS is very much into the new NetConf management way which means many of your old SNMP tools won't work (this goes for both 7k and 5k). DCNM is not a very mature product as far as I'm concerned and leaves a lot to be desired. If you have SNMP tools you need to make sure you can use them with the new platform - the MIB support on the 5k is laughable, for example. If you do everything by CLI and spurn fancy GUIs as toys for children you're golden :)

There have been a few other minor niggles, such as the mgmt0 interface on two 5k switches actually changing MAC addresses after a software upgrade (which meant the NMS thought they were down for a good 30 minutes until we could investigate - the MAC addresses had been incremented by 1 for some reason). They also had a _serious_ bug in the 5.0(something) version of code for the 5k that made the vPC pretty much useless. This was fixed in the 5.0(something + ohcrapIcantbelievewescrewedthisup) release.

I'm not saying to steer clear of the 7k/5k switches, just be aware of what your expectations are and make sure your kit will deliver (ideally with close support from your VAR, preferably with documented deliverables!). The Nexus series appears to be the way forward, but it's not the trusty 6500 platform of yore quite yet. Granted, the 6500 has been allowed to mature for a long time (some would say too long), but there are a few issues on the Nexuses that are not worthy of a Cisco flag ship product no matter how you slice it.

In short, the 7k/F2 combo is a good product with a lot going for it. In a year or two with loving software updates it may even become great. As it stands I feel a tad cheated by Cisco SlideWare and the SE/VAR, but as we've got a sunset/horizon of about 10 years for this kit it might have improved significantly by the time it gets scrapped in favour of something Greater(tm) and we start all over again :D

I apologise if I hijacked the thread, but it's been a full day of smashing my face against the wall of "don't tell me this shiny new Nexus actually fails this badly at something that shouldn't even be an issue" :)


Not sure if still having DHCP issues with your N7k - found this link - seems similar problem with resolution. Hope it helps.

https://it.ucsb.edu/news/campus-network ... production

""
The first Nexus 7010 (N7K) is moving production traffic. Site preparation is essentially complete at one core location, and the N7K has a vlan-tagged link to the old 6506 router. Portions of the old configuration were converted by a locally-developed script and imported to the N7K, so the N7K has all the necessary VLAN, routed VLAN interface, and ACL information. Those subnets supporting NOC services are now routed by the N7K.

The new router configurations use CoPP (Control-Plane Policing) to help protect the router from various attacks and other evil, and CoPP requires careful cofiguration. Although it did not impact any users, a couple of issues with CoPP became obvious after the migration of NOC subnets. The first problem was that DHCP did not work. A client would request an address, the router would forward the request to the DHCP server, the server would respond, but the router would drop the response and the client would still need an address. This is typical of a CoPP problem, and was easily resolved by adding a clause to the CoPP configuration to accept DHCP replies from the DHCP servers. The other problem involved a multicast source which was not recognized by the router. Again, CoPP was preventing the control plane from seeing most multicast traffic, so it did not learn about the multicast source. A small modification to CoPP and the multicast source was recognized and accessible to other on-campus clients. I'm certain there will be additional tweaks to CoPP in the coming months, but I hope the majority of the configuration is adequate to our needs.
""

Regards,
Matt

dlploh04
New Member
Posts:
15
Joined:
Wed Apr 18, 2012 7:25 pm

Re: Cisco Catalyst 6509E vs Nexus 7009

Thu Apr 26, 2012 3:01 pm

just2cool wrote:
Vito_Corleone wrote:If the 6500s could compete at 10g I'd probably back off the Nexus for a year or so.

If the 6500 did 550gig/slot, I would personally throw my 7Ks away, as would pretty much everyone. But we all know it will never compete at 10gig.


How many 10GE ports can be used with proper subscription based on what you have in the Aggregation / Distribution / Access layer with two 6509? 6 line cards remaining per chassis if 2 supervisors and a services module is installed.

6904 card = 8 line rate 10gbe or 16 2:1 10gbe
6904 card = 2 line rate 40gbe or 4 2:1 40gbe

48 line rate 10gbe downlinks or 96 2:1 10gbe downlinks per chassis if dual homed in VSS config then same #...48/96 10gbe?
12 line rate 40gbe downlinks or 24 2:1 40gbe downlinks per chassis if dual homed in VSS config then same #...12/24 40gbe?

480GB total line rate downlinks to server aggregation/dist switches and closet access switches?

With the information Vito received this week from Cisco regarding future investment protection on the 6500e series - Is there not a simple rule of X amount of 10/40GB downlinks needed to pick one or the other?

I'm thinking about 4 Nexus 5596UP's - at the server aggregation layer doing local L2 switching - with 4 10GB uplinks to core per 5596 and 4-6 Catalyst 4507's having one 10GB uplink to each core per 4507.

Seems if go with the 7009 we will have 5 line cards empty, or 4 cards if we add another 48port 10gb which would equal adding two fully loaded 6509e line card capacity?

And if go with the 6509e, seems we will be using 22-28 10GB ports per 6509e, allowing another 20-26 10gb line rate ports or 3-5 40gb line rate ports available by changing the module in the 6904 card?

What am I missing? Maybe I am looking at this with not a long enough timeframe?

Vito - Any idea if the information about the 6500e or 7009 can be shared or will become available soon?

Regards,
Matt

User avatar
Vito_Corleone
Moderator
Posts:
9847
Joined:
Mon Apr 07, 2008 10:38 am
Certs:
CCNP RS, CCNP DC, CCDP, CCIP

Re: Cisco Catalyst 6509E vs Nexus 7009

Thu Apr 26, 2012 3:43 pm

I have no information on the 7009. Quick note, you seem to be looking at density only. Throw price into the mix as well and I think you'll see that the the 7K wins.

As for 6500 info, talk to your SE. See what information they'll give you about the 6500. We're all under NDA and I can't post the stuff they tell us on a forum. Again though, even with the stuff they're saying, the Nexus still wins for 10g/core connectivity, IMO.
http://blog.alwaysthenetwork.com

just2cool
Member
Posts:
137
Joined:
Fri Dec 24, 2010 12:11 am
Certs:
Expired 350-001

Re: Cisco Catalyst 6509E vs Nexus 7009

Sun Apr 29, 2012 10:49 pm

dlploh04 wrote:How many 10GE ports can be used with proper subscription based on what you have in the Aggregation / Distribution / Access layer with two 6509? 6 line cards remaining per chassis if 2 supervisors and a services module is installed.

I'm thinking about 4 Nexus 5596UP's - at the server aggregation layer doing local L2 switching - with 4 10GB uplinks to core per 5596 and 4-6 Catalyst 4507's having one 10GB uplink to each core per 4507.
Don't always pay attention to the "core-->agg-->access" model bs. Agg layers are only required if you absolutely need more bandwidth and the core can't support all that traffic. If you buy a 7K, you can run a collapsed core/agg without an issue, it will be a hell of a lot less complex, will perform a lot better, be easier to manage, and will be more reliable as a result of all this.

The sup720/sup2T is an advanced services router than can also downgrade itself to a datacenter core role or even an access layer switch. The problem with it playing a core role is that it is not designed to strongly support 10gig/40gig/100gig, even with sup2T no matter what cisco tells you. Why bother buying this for the future? What features do you need in the DC core that a modern DC core can't provide? If you have any dream of supporting 10gig server farms, do not buy a 6K as the core, you will inevitably regret your choice. This is an unbiased opinion -- I have roughly 20 sup720s doing other roles in my network today that I would never let my 7K do.

dlploh04 wrote:Seems if go with the 7009 we will have 5 line cards empty, or 4 cards if we add another 48port 10gb which would equal adding two fully loaded 6509e line card capacity?

What am I missing? Maybe I am looking at this with not a long enough timeframe?
Read those two questions again -- you want to buy a core maxed out on day 1 vs one that has room for expansion? Don't feel bad though, no one is looking ahead. Everyone thinks that 10gig uplinks on a 10gig access switch is going to work. Newsflash, it won't -- if 2 servers pull data at the same time and hash to the same member in the port channel (happens all the time), you will have tons of output drops. With a 10gig uplink on a 1gig switch, you can have 10 concurrent 1gig conversations at the same time with 0 drops -- the quality of this uplink is better for what it is supporting.

2 40gig uplinks on a 48 port 10gig switch isn't going to work either. I'd say 4 40gig uplinks is the absolute minimum, but it's still a rather crappy 3:1 oversubscription, so I plan to limit the amount of servers in each cabinet to make it 2:1. 4x100gig is what I want, but that's not happening any time soon.

'
PreviousNext

Return to Cisco General

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: Bing [Bot] and 21 guests