[log in to unmask][log in to unmask]
27317 221 23_Re: Cisco Nexus Gotchas19_Ronald Martin [log in to unmask], 3 Feb 2014 15:39:13 +0000496_us-ascii We've had Nexus 7000's in production for a while now, but don't use the 2K's. The issues we've had are mostly related to certain line cards.
The 32-port M1 module has had some reliability issues. We've had a few hardware failures. They also have performance limitations where 4 ports are serviced by a single ASIC. We had a situation where high volume research traffic on one interface exceeded the capacity of the ASIC affecting production traffic on an adjacent interface. [...]36_3Feb201415:39:[log in to unmask]
27539 96 23_Re: Cisco Nexus Gotchas11_Dale [log in to unmask], 3 Feb 2014 08:14:06 -0800403_US-ASCII We were early adopters and have been running Nexus for 3+ years. When we jumped in, the 2Ks were 1G (access ports) only and it forced us to hang 10/100 switches in the racks so we could connect ILOMs and management ports that are still 100Mb. Cisco came out with 10/100/1000 2Ks just after we bought. Make sure your 2Ks do 100Mb and save the management and clutter of extraneous switches. [...]39_3Feb201408:14:[log in to unmask]
27636 293 23_Re: Cisco Nexus Gotchas11_Dennis [log in to unmask], 3 Feb 2014 12:01:36 -0500443_ISO-8859-1 We implemented the nexus with the earlier 2K cards. It had slipped by us
that the 2Ks will not support a switch being up linked to it. IIRC, as
soon as a 2K port saw a bpdu, it shut down the port. Not sure if this
behavior has changed over the years. You probably are aware of this but
the 2Ks do not switch, they punt all packets up to the 7K in this case
again if I recall correctly with a proprietary header. [...]37_3Feb201412:01:[log in to unmask]
27930 107 23_Re: Cisco Nexus Gotchas11_Mark [log in to unmask], 3 Feb 2014 09:23:16 -0800339_ISO-8859-1 Same here. At the time we purchased, the 2k were model 2148 that
didn't do 100M. We know that but we didn't know that it also didn't
do etherchannel. They replaced those with the 2248 that added 100 MB
operation (and maybe 10 also) and etherchannel. But for those buying
new gear that wouldn't be an issue now. [...]42_3Feb201409:23:[log in to unmask]
28038 35 23_Re: Cisco Nexus Gotchas12_Jason [log in to unmask], 3 Feb 2014 17:44:59 +0000561_iso-8859-1 On Feb 3, 2014, at 12:23 PM, Mark Duling <[log in to unmask]> wrote:
> Same here. At the time we purchased, the 2k were model 2148 that didn't do 100M.
Similarly, if you get 2232's, they only support 1/10G, not 100Mb.
We kept ILO, KVM, etc. (many of which are 100M) on a separate set of management switches, so it wasn't a major problem. We have a couple 100M legacy non-management devices that had to be addressed in our migration, though. [...]40_3Feb201417:44:[log in to unmask]
28074 42 23_Re: Cisco Nexus Gotchas14_Christina [log in to unmask], 4 Feb 2014 10:11:41 -0500497_ISO-8859-1 We have been using the 2K for a number of years now-- first with the 5Ks
and now with the 7Ks.
There are a number of features I would like Cisco to add to them. Some
will be added soon. Some are waiting for more people to request them.
1. CDP when connected to 7K
2. vpc+ of FEX when connected to 7K
3. Full PVLAN functionalility (This may have been addressed. I have not
tried to do PVLAN on them in a few years.)
4. Switchport monitor destination [...]34_4Feb201410:11:[log in to unmask]
28117 49 23_Dynamic DNS question...9_Jeff [log in to unmask], 4 Feb 2014 10:57:07 -0500487_ISO-8859-1 Our network address/domain management has traditionally been ISC DHCP
and ISC BIND. For dynamic addresses assigned from pools, we have DHCP
do the dynamic DNS update of┘aI'o