I have used the Catalyst 6500 series in the past. From my point of view, the Arista surpasses the Catalyst on just about every front. Originally we were planning on implementing the Nexus 7000/7700 series switches for our core. Though a little more feature rich, it did not …
We are using both Arista 7280 and Cisco Nexus 9300 devices. Arista switches have deep buffer features and helps us for handling the big data packets. But these switches are a little bit more expensive than nexus 9300 switches. And also Arista 7050x Series can be competitive …
We chose the Nexus series over the Catalyst series based on performance and the future roadmap of the Catalyst series. Our vendor told us that the Catalyst system was going to begin focusing on campus networks; meanwhile, the Nexus was the future of the data center. Couple that …
Core and data center applications are the strengths of Arista products. The distribution layer is also a good fit. For the access layer, it would be more of a niche product.
It fits perfectly in all our data centers where we are using it. For small companies or smaller racks or something. I don't think it fits there because Cisco Nexus Series Switches is a big one. It's the most advanced one.
Maintenance, upgrades, and software certification can be performed without service interruptions because of the modular nature of NX-OS and features such as In-Service Software Upgrade (ISSU) and the capability for processes to restart dynamically
FabricPath:
Enables each device to build an overall view of the topology; this is similar to other link state routing protocols. Each device in the FabricPath topology is identified by a switch-id. The Layer 2 forwarding tables are built based on reachability to each switch-id, not by the MAC address. Eliminates spanning-tree to maximize network bandwidth and flexibility in topological configurations, as well as simplify operational support and configuration. This enables a tremendous amount of flexibility on the topology because you can now build FabricPath topologies for Layer 2-based networks the same as for Layer 3-based networks
Overlay Transport Virtualization (OTV): Enables the Layer 2 extension between distributed data centers over any transport Layer 3 network
Implementing jumbo frames on interfaces of its fabric extender series (N2k, etc.) by editing the network QoS does not have to be a global configuration that would affect all its interfaces. It can be improved to become just an interface configuration.
Licensing on the NXOS is a bit complicated and expensive. I understand that the Nexus is made for core data center switching but it does not have to break the bank.
OTV technology is for Nexus only. Based on the advantage of the technology, it should be made vendor-neutral to accommodate other vendor devices.
Actually if we need to implement or develop our actual DC we will use Cisco Nexus Series Switches again. The solution is well known and we will be able to interconnect easily the switches, as we're not using all the possibilities of features we know what is solution is a long term solution.
The platform has a good performance. The major issue is all the bugs you can discover across the operations, and it can be a big challenge depending on the number of Cisco Nexus Series Switches you have deployed. In our case, we own more than 200 Cisco Nexus Series Switches 9k, and we face an upgrade process, it could be a long time project to grant a new software deployment in all our switches platform.
These switches are very fast. They've been designed to work within the data center. We connect them to Cisco UCS-B Mini servers with the storage being directly attached. They are able to handle the data traffic pretty easily. We can also move servers pretty fast from data center to data center without overloading them. This has allowed our company to stay running during any kind of conditional outage. We have come to really rely on them for business continuity.
Overall, Cisco has great products and I believe that they believe in the philosophy of a great customer experience. Although there have been a few technical support issues that caused a lot of company anxiety, in most cases, Cisco has gone above and beyond in making a valiant effort to help the customer solve any issues.
I have used the Catalyst 6500 series in the past. From my point of view, the Arista surpasses the Catalyst on just about every front. Originally we were planning on implementing the Nexus 7000/7700 series switches for our core. Though a little more feature rich, it did not provide features we needed that the Arista did. The Nexus also was a confusing and complex platform to work with. Also, the Nexus was a significantly more expensive solution. Although very happy with the Arista switches we may evaluate the Aruba HPE 8400 chassis-based switches along with Arista switches in the future.
The Cisco 9000 stacks up quite well against the Cisco Catalyst 3850 switches. The additional features available in the Nexus 9000, such as VPN, FCoE, 40 gigabits, give us the ability to support the future needs of the company in our data center. The Nexus 9000 allowed us to condense our core and aggregation environment that comprised of 2 Catalyst 6504 and 2 Catalyst 6509 to a port of Nexus 9000. Although the Catalyst 3850 would be sufficient to handle routing, those features in the Nexus 9000 made it the clear choice for us.
We recently use the entreprise agreement on another perimeter, I could say that is linked to the typology of deployment. On our nexus perimeter, pricing and contract terms are defined without any evolution also is quite simple.
The Nexus 3000 series switches are data center switches, so I would say they have similar security ability to other switches in this segment. I don't have a lot of experience doing more than basic ACL security on switches, but I know these can be integrated into other security solutions like Cisco ISE and 802.1x authentication. It could also be integrated into an ACI solution to add micro segmentation, which would bring in other security functions.
