Using a cheap POE switch.  I'm pretty happy with it since it's cheap.  It's
a bit noisy with a small load would be my only complaint - I suspect it's
the same volume at full load.

No management/layer 3 features on mine nor do I want them.  I don't know if
L2 only means you want management or not.

On Thu, Apr 14, 2022 at 10:24 AM Paschal Masha <
paschal.ma...@ke.wananchi.com> wrote:

> Same experience here. So far so good and their TAC is efficient.
>
> I had to disable MCLAG settings due to a strange behavior with multicast.
> Something that appeared unpleasing- at least to me - is the fact that the
> separate MPLS license doesn't support PIM when activated.
>
>
>
> Regards
> Paschal Masha | Engineering
> Skype ID: paschal.masha
>
> ----- Original Message -----
> From: "Chris Adams" <c...@cmadams.net>
> To: "nanog" <nanog@nanog.org>
> Sent: Thursday, April 14, 2022 4:55:27 PM
> Subject: Re: fs.com Ethernet switches
>
> Once upon a time, Richard Angeletti <r...@psc.edu> said:
> > Wondering if anyone on the list has any experiences with fs.com
> Ethernet
> > switches that they are willing to share (good or bad)?
> >
> > We're looking for some cost effective L2 only 10Gb-T switches and their
> > S58XX switches have come up as a potential option.
>
> I set up a couple of S5850s for a sever cluster recently, with MC-LAG
> and a bit of L3 for a management network. They worked fine.
>
> The only issue I had was getting ACLs applied to limit device and
> management net access; they had a couple of extra steps needed. The
> typical IOS-ish "ip access-group" command is accepted on an interface,
> but it doesn't actually work that way - you have to do a policy-map that
> references a class-map that references an access-list, and then apply
> the policy-map to the interface.
>
> Also, putting an ACL on "line vty" only applied after authentication (so
> you could SSH and authenticate, only to then be denied access, which
> makes it susceptible to password scanners). Instead you configure an
> ACL on the SSH service itself.
>
> --
> Chris Adams <c...@cmadams.net>
>
>
>
>

Reply via email to