This situation scares me. It has HP "best interest" written all over it.
You have expertise in competing vendors but not with HP/3Com. They could very
well be easy to configure but maybe inferior when you get into the details of
how they function. Then if you find out they can't support your busin
On 06/17/2010 09:52 AM, James Smith wrote:
So my questions to the NANOG community are: Would you recommend HP over
Cisco or Juniper?
Not for core networking.
How is HP's functionality and performance compared to Cisco or Juniper?
HP's Procurve switches have been around forever, they're about
A couple consulting gigs I did had 3Com stuff since it was cheap and they
got educational deals. They were consulting me to put in Cisco gear ;-) This
was admittedly 3-4 years ago.
I've never met anyone who has told me positive stories about 3Com equipment,
but I suppose I'm biased also from the h
> From a technical point of view, I have never worked in a shop that used HP
or 3Com for the infrastructure. Dot-com's, telco's, bank's, hosting
companies...I haven't seen any of them using 3com or HP. Additionally, I'm
not fond of having to deal with a third set of equipment. I'm not exactl
I can tell many stories about 3com switches, email me off list, the
language used will not be suitable for the list.
On 18/06/2010 2:27 a.m., Jack Carrozzo wrote:
A couple consulting gigs I did had 3Com stuff since it was cheap and they
got educational deals. They were consulting me to put i
On Fri, Jun 18, 2010 at 02:40:04AM +1200, Andrew Thrift wrote:
> Another major negative with the HP gear for us is that their switches
> only support SFP/SFP+ modules manufactured by HP, so those SFP+ Twin-AX
> cables that came with your Dell/IBM Blade chassis will be useless to
> connect to y
On 6/17/2010 10:40 AM, Andrew Thrift wrote:
> Another major negative with the HP gear for us is that their switches
> only support SFP/SFP+ modules manufactured by HP, so those SFP+
> Twin-AX cables that came with your Dell/IBM Blade chassis will be
> useless to connect to your HP Switches, to add
And to add to it here's a Cisco SFP in a Juniper chassis showing a
serial number that looks suspiciously like a Finisar serial number.
PIC 1 REV 04 711-021270 AR0209216364 4x GE SFP
Xcvr 0NON-JNPR FNS0932K03B SFP-SX
-b
On Thu, Jun 17, 2010 at 8:0
I have never used 3Com or HP equipment in an infrastucture / mission critical
enviornment so I will not attest to their qualities or failures. What I can
tell you about is HP's recent acquisition of 3Com in my opinion had little to
do with HP wanting to get into a core switch/routing market.
Sh
On Thu, 17 Jun 2010, James Smith wrote:
So my questions to the NANOG community are: Would you recommend HP over
Cisco or Juniper?
Pretty much never, unless you're talking about a rebadged Brocade product.
Every time I've seen HP networking gear in production, its usually before
it gets replace
We've had a much different experience than what Tom is describing here.
We've used HP extensively in our networks, mostly because of the price
and warranty. For simple, flat networks, they are a great buy, in my
opinion. We've never seen the packet loss issues that were described,
and we push q
Not to stir the pot, but Extreme is making some good products at a low
cost and have lifetime warranties. I've been using them lately in the
end-user edge as lower cost POE termination. They do LLDP-MED
flawlessly so Cisco, or other phones get their voice vlan and pass the
data vlan. Now, they are
Haven't seen these same issues either, but have seen others..
We use HP 8212's here to connect our storage and hpc devices. each 8212 has
about 20 or more 10Gbit connections. Everyone is happy with them from an
availability and performance perspective. Two things which I noticed, 1.
Und
On Thu, 17 Jun 2010, Tom Ammon wrote:
We've had a much different experience than what Tom is describing here.
To be fair, each platform seems to vary quite a bit in quality and
reliability. I have seen some HP installs work ok, but they were primarily
edge switches or bladecenter switches.
y, June 17, 2010 12:49 PM
To: Tom
Cc: nanog@nanog.org
Subject: Re: Advice regarding Cisco/Juniper/HP
Not to stir the pot, but Extreme is making some good products at a low cost and
have lifetime warranties. I've been using them lately in the end-user edge as
lower cost POE termination. T
On 6/17/2010 11:01, Sandone, Nick wrote:
> I would also add Brocade/Foundry to the mix as well. We've been deploying
> these switches with great results. Since the IOS is very similar to Cisco's,
> the transition has been quite easy.
>
>
Do you still have to pay them to read the manual?
~S
they may require a deposit before you load their web site..
-g
-Original Message-
From: Seth Mattinen [mailto:se...@rollernet.us]
Sent: Thursday, June 17, 2010 2:07 PM
To: nanog@nanog.org
Subject: Re: Advice regarding Cisco/Juniper/HP
On 6/17/2010 11:01, Sandone, Nick wrote:
>
On Thu, 2010-06-17 at 11:07 -0700, Seth Mattinen wrote:
> On 6/17/2010 11:01, Sandone, Nick wrote:
> > I would also add Brocade/Foundry to the mix as well. We've been deploying
> > these switches with great results. Since the IOS is very similar to
> > Cisco's, the transition has been quite eas
The main problem with HP switches and their 'free software upgrades' is that
there are regularly bugs and regressions in the software and their solution is
to have you 'oh just update the software'... this is not always practical in a
production environment. And other weirdnesses. I like thei
> From: William Pitcock
> Date: Thu, 17 Jun 2010 13:35:30 -0500
>
> On Thu, 2010-06-17 at 11:07 -0700, Seth Mattinen wrote:
> > On 6/17/2010 11:01, Sandone, Nick wrote:
> > > I would also add Brocade/Foundry to the mix as well. We've been
> > > deploying these switches with great results. Sinc
I am guessing they might be referring to the h3c equipment.
3com and Huewai had joint venture, that was bought out by 3com before they
were purchased by HP
see http://www.h3cnetworks.com/en_US/index.page
We use the HP as edge switches in the campus networks, and they seem to work
well.
I would
cade)
--
Greg Hankins
-Original Message-
Date: Thu, 17 Jun 2010 14:12:40 -0700
From: Kevin Oberman
To: William Pitcock
Cc: nanog@nanog.org
Subject: Re: Advice regarding Cisco/Juniper/HP
> From: William Pitcock
> Date: Thu, 17 Jun 2010 13:35:30 -0500
>
> On Thu, 2010-06-17 at
>
> Product documentation will be freely available on the new MyBrocade
> support
> site that is under construction. This is part of a huge effort to
> integrate
> the disparate support sites' software, knowledge bases, manuals, etc.
> into
> one new happy place.
>
> Stand by, and thanks for y
On 17/06/10 20:02, Carl Rosevear wrote:
> The main problem with HP switches and their 'free software upgrades'
> is that there are regularly bugs and regressions in the software and
> their solution is to have you 'oh just update the software'... this
> is not always practical in a production envi
OK, I'll throw in my $.02,
It really doesn't matter what any of us say, anecdotes from NANOG will not
stop your CEO/CFO or worse your CMO from directing you to use HP.
You have only two choices. The first is to engage in "war of the PowerPoints"
during which you and the HP account team inform "th
To emphasise more this subject, the technical support HP Procurve is
providing (for free) is more consumer level and in my opinion is one of the
key differentiators from teams like Cisco TAC. Here is a short laundry list
of my experience:
For an example a typical phone call to their help desk (onl
On Sat, Jun 19, 2010 at 7:52 AM, Pavel Skovajsa
wrote:
> To emphasise more this subject, the technical support HP Procurve is
> providing (for free) is more consumer level and in my opinion is one of the
> key differentiators from teams like Cisco TAC. Here is a short laundry list
> of my experien
On Thu, Jun 17, 2010 at 6:52 AM, James Smith
wrote:
> we're in the process of building a DR site.
Assume for purposes of discussion that all the vendors have equivalent
quality equipment with approximately equivalent features.
I can think of four occasions you'd need a DR center
1 - Practicing y
On Thu, Jun 17, 2010 at 7:21 PM, Greg Whynott wrote:
> 1. Under heavy load (60% or more of 10Gbit interfaces at +80%) we have seen
> _all_ interfaces simultaneously drop packets and generate interface errors.
> this was on an early release of the firmware and I don't think we have seen
> th
On 23 June 2010 08:54, Colin Alston wrote:
> I dislike HP switches from a management point of view (and I think the
> VLAN config is nonsense), but they work fine.
That's strange, I abhor the Cisco way of doing VLANs and love the
HP/Procurve method.
What do you find so irritating?
Kind regards,
> That's strange, I abhor the Cisco way of doing VLANs and love the
> HP/Procurve method.
>
> What do you find so irritating?
>
I find it irritating because I am often running thousands of vlans and
do not want to explicitly type them all out in the config or to have
to do so with a script. `swit
For large campuses that have a lot (hundreds) of switches, Cisco seems
to win out over HP from a TCO standpoint.
I've consistently seen HP switches have higher failure rates, which
isn't a big deal if you're a smaller shop, but when you have a large
campus (or several large campuses across a state
> pretty quick. I think what we do using about 10 people in a Cisco
> environment would be closer to 20 in an HP and Juniper environment, so
> those additional salaries and benefits need to be a factor.
I hear you on the HP stuff, but are you saying that Juniper equipment also
shows a higher fail
Poor choice of words, Juniper does fine.
On Fri, Jun 25, 2010 at 9:12 AM, Jason Gurtz wrote:
>> pretty quick. I think what we do using about 10 people in a Cisco
>> environment would be closer to 20 in an HP and Juniper environment, so
>> those additional salaries and benefits need to be a facto
On Fri, Jun 25, 2010 at 09:12:57AM -0400, Jason Gurtz wrote:
> > pretty quick. I think what we do using about 10 people in a Cisco
> > environment would be closer to 20 in an HP and Juniper environment, so
> > those additional salaries and benefits need to be a factor.
How many switches/users are
On Thu, Jun 24, 2010 at 9:52 PM, Matthew Walster wrote:
> On 23 June 2010 08:54, Colin Alston wrote:
>> I dislike HP switches from a management point of view (and I think the
>> VLAN config is nonsense), but they work fine.
>
> That's strange, I abhor the Cisco way of doing VLANs and love the
> H
> > That's strange, I abhor the Cisco way of doing VLANs and love the
> > HP/Procurve method.
> >
> > What do you find so irritating?
>
> It just feels ass backwards alot of the time, especially trunking.
> That's more likely an "RTFM" problem, but the Cisco VLAN config has
> always just seemed mo
> -Original Message-
> From: Colin Alston
> Sent: Tuesday, June 29, 2010 11:27 PM
> To: Matthew Walster
> Cc: nanog@nanog.org
> Subject: Re: Advice regarding Cisco/Juniper/HP
>
> On Thu, Jun 24, 2010 at 9:52 PM, Matthew Walster
> wrote:
> It just feels
> -Original Message-
> From: sthaug
> Sent: Wednesday, June 30, 2010 12:35 AM
> Cc: nanog@nanog.org
> Subject: Re: Advice regarding Cisco/Juniper/HP
>
> The Cisco default of allowing all VLANs on a trunk is dangerous in a
> service provider environment (not to me
On Jun 30, 2010, at 12:07 PM, George Bonser wrote:
> if I want to
> know which vlans a port is in, you look at the port config and there it
> is. Other gear you need to look through each vlan configuration and
> note which vlans the port appears in and hope you don't overlook one.
or become fam
On 30/06/2010 17:07, George Bonser wrote:
> Some gear you add vlans to a port. Other gear you add ports to vlans.
> Personally, I prefer the Cisco configuration syntax because if I want to
> know which vlans a port is in, you look at the port config and there it
> is. Other gear you need to look t
On Wed, 30 Jun 2010 12:18:24 -0400, Greg Whynott
wrote:
I like cisco, but i think the HP way is more logical and less prone to
error. A previous poster gave an excelent example, i burnt myself not
adding the "add" to a trunk config on our cisco switches. i went over
the magical number
On Jun 30, 2010, at 4:50 PM, Ricky Beam wrote:
> Personally, I prefer a bit of both.
same here. both have some things which I don't agree with. prime example
again is adding more than X vlans to an interface, why the "add"?
interface TenGigabitEthernet5/5
switchport trunk allowed vlan 2
On 6/30/2010 5:14 PM, Greg Whynott wrote:
> On Jun 30, 2010, at 4:50 PM, Ricky Beam wrote:
>> No they don't. Which version of IOS are you running? Oh, right, that
>> switch doesn't run IOS, it runs CatOS? Wait a min, that's a 1900... it
>> uses a menu interface.
Actually, before they went
> -Original Message-
> From: Greg Whynott
> Sent: Wednesday, June 30, 2010 9:18 AM
> To: George Bonser
> Cc: Colin Alston; nanog@nanog.org
> Subject: Re: Advice regarding Cisco/Juniper/HP
>
> or become familiar with some basic commands, which is after all, ou
Jeff Young wrote:
you'll need twice as much of Brand X and therefore, the deal isn't quite so
appealing. (By the way HP, Cisco and Juniper are pretty much
interchangeable in this discussion).
If they are interchangeable then why bother getting into a war at all?
It's very tiresome. :-|
--
On 30 June 2010 21:50, Ricky Beam wrote:
> Typos are just as simple (even more simple) on an HP. There's no add/remove
> mode for vlan port membership. You specify the entire list every time.
conf t
vlan 1000
tag 1
tag 22
untag 44
exit
exit
write memory
exit
Result: vlan 1000 is tagged on port
On Wednesday, June 30, 2010 04:50:40 pm Ricky Beam wrote:
> No they don't. Which version of IOS are you running? Oh, right, that
> switch doesn't run IOS, it runs CatOS? Wait a min, that's a 1900... it
> uses a menu interface.
Yep, much like the 'NetBeyond' EtherSwitch 1420 I have here doin
48 matches
Mail list logo
