What I like about their website is that the complete product documentation is on the same page as the products. This is just fantastic. If any sit eis a dogs breakfast it has to be Ciscos site…

The MCT works like a dream and has simplified network design by removing a need for multiple subnets across two switches for redundancy. I now have a single subnet between core devices and use MCT for redundancy.

Brocade support has been fantastic even though w ehave had no issues, their support with LAB time and engineering resource has been better than any vendor I have used.

We have a very mixed environemt with HP blades and iSCSI storage, VMware, Juniper routers and lots of MPLS. The MLX4 integrates and inteoperates on all levels.

Also, we are currently testing VMWare using MCT… We’re hoping that works out well. You’re right though… the devil in the details remains to be seen in our environment. I’ll post back here when the honeymoon is over.

My personal experience with Brocade has been less than exciting in both technology and business. Feedback like yours will challenge me to look again.

greg

We chose Brocade based on features and performance. We also chose the MRJ21 solution to top of our server racks which has worked out beautifully so far… less cable mess for sure! The Nexus top of rack solution uses a powered device (like a switch but not) that trunks up to the switch via fiber with a limit of 40 Gbps (4x10Gb). We didn’t see the need to add another powered device where a simple MRJ21 patch panel would do.

We are using MCT (multi-chassis trunking) between our core MLX16 switches and our FCX48 access layer switches. Works like a champ in our testing.

We did struggle to get the HP Servers to use MCT but narrowed the problem down to a lacp issue with the HP driver. Brocade support was awesome in this regard, setting a full system to match ours and proved that the issue was on the HP side. When using Broadcom drives (not HP drivers), MCT worked fine. We are still waiting to hear from HP on this issue.

We’re a few days away from being completely done, but two months of testing and a week of production use has worked out great.

Cisco offered two versions of switching code – CatOS and IoS

Cisco offered two verions of code for firewalls – PIX and PIX now maybe something in-between IoS and PIX in the ASA

Cisco is now offering a whole new code – Nexus!

So in counting like we are up to 5?

Shall we continue with….. CM or UM or IPCC or UCCX or CCM? Someone please decide what we are going to call it, please!

If you are using MLX’s you can use MCT (Multi-Chassis Trunking) between the MLX’s and LACP/802.3ad from the servers just as long and the servers are using lAgP for aggregation not PAgP

They offer the ( non-blocking)

NetIron – Service Providor and Enterprise

BigIron – Enterprise and HighEnd

FastIron – Access layer and Low and Medium sized companies

TurboIron – Fast Traffic mover 24 x 10Gb

ServerIron – Load Balancing

RFS and MC (MobileIron) – Wireless LAN

All with SFlow for free not just on routers or with an upgrade!

And now in Jan the VDX/VCS (Clouding and Data Center)

It’s still a ways off.

Blade Networks has announced a product supporting TRILL:
http://www.theregister.co.uk/2010/10/14/blade_network_rackspace_g8264/
and the Cisco FabricPath product is just a pre-standards version of TRIL:.

Thanks,
Donald (Co-Chair, IETF TRILL Working Group)

I’ve got better things to do.

OK, OK, I sttoped here.

Like your entire post, you’re clearly misinformed about Brocade’s products.

You ask for not using your blog for guerrilla marketing, but that is just what you’re doing for Cisco.

Do your homework first: http://www.brocade.com

Playing the Cisco taliban is just pathetic.

Disclaimer: I’m not a Brocade emplyoee.

I don’t care whether you use merchant silicon or FPGA’s to get your performance. Give me a usability experience equivalent to Cisco and I would consider your product more favourably.

If Brocade continues to sell cheap as a feature (mentioned on every comment) they are going to be in trouble.

I hate people who use my blog for guerilla marketing. If you want advertising, please talk to me and lets arrange it. Don’t steal my content to promote your agenda.

Netiron XMR/MLX/CER (CER is 1 ru) MPLS standards supported for ISP – found on their public web site.

MPLS
ï RFC 3031 MPLS Architecture
ï RFC 3032 MPLS Label Stack Encoding
ï RFC 3036 LDP Specification
ï RFC 2205 RSVP v1 Functional Specification
ï RFC 2209 RSVP v1 Message
Processing Rules
ï RFC 3209 RSVP-TE
ï RFC 3270 MPLS Support of
Differentiated Services
ï RFC 4090 Fast Reroute Extensions to
RSVP-TE for LSP Tunnels; partial support:
detour style
ï RFC 3812 MPLS TE MIB
ï draft-ietf-bfd-mpls BFD for MPLS LSPs
(RSVP-TE)

Greg – no access
Fastiron WS (10/100 and 10/100/1000 and both available in PoE and non PoE) 802.1af
Fastiron LS (10/100/1000 with 2 or 3 10g uplinks) – optional stacking
FastIron GS (10/100/1000 with 2 x 10g uplinks) – optional stacking and PoE 802.1af
FastIron CX (10/100/1000 with 2 x 10g uplinks) – optional PoE+ 802.1at
Note : 24 port version powers all ports af 802.1at
48 port version power 26 ports af 802.1at
FastIron SX 800 (up to 192 1g ports, support 10g ports support 802.1af on all ports with N+1 power
FastIron SX 1600 (up to 384 1g ports, supports 10g ports, supports 802.1af on all port with N+1 power

Greg – Brocade paid $3.4 bil≠lion for Foundry

Foundry had 2b in the bank so paid 1.4b – a good buy IMO

Greg – Of course, Brocade only makes high end FibreChannel switches which are high per≠form≠ance, high com≠plex≠ity and highly pro≠pri≠et≠ary so Foundry makes a nice fit to nice little corner of the mar≠ket for a tidy profit.

Foundry was build on open standards (only two protocols that I know are proprietary are VRRP-E and MRP) If you have used VRRP-E there is no way you would want to go back to VRRP. MRP – everbody has a ring protocol (there is no standard that I know of for this) – so it is a me too thing.

There are three code trains one for ServerIron, one for NetIron and one for FastIron. This was started under Foundry and finished under Brocade.

Greg – Ethernet is the future.

Yes it is. FCoE, DCBS, PFC and Trill etc.
Loseless Ethernet frabics CEE – Brocade have that
Trill is the main standard that is a long way off and is the layer 2 routing protocol.

Brocade OWN their own layer 2 routing protocol (I think it is called FCOSPF) – we will maybe see this used as a pre standard so we can do multihop. Yes I said pre standard as the standard is not expected to be released untill next year. However the code will be in FPGA and can be change to the standard if/when release.

As a Foundry/Brocade reseller for 10+ years (along with Cisco, HP and 3Com) I must say that you must be speaking to the wrong people – their is lots of information, not to mection many direct customer preso (by SE’s not sales), seminars and my.brocade.com community sites.

In the first year of the Brocade takeover we have had the hardware platform design from the ground up for server SLB (at up to 70gps), the FastIron CX, NetIron CES and NetIron CER.

3 New products – one for each space (ISP/Enterprise and SLB). As well as 16 port 10g cards for the BigIron.

Lloyd also brings up other godd info on network management and the stated goals for it.

Based on price point AND perforamance The Brocade solutions should be overlooked. But eval to see if the kit meets your needs. Check the Datasheet for the products and see if the feature is supported. Or use a real VAR that can do the work for you.

Come on, that’s just ridiculous! Brocade’s product lineup is so disjointed, and like Greg, I don’t see any sense of direction or comprehension of what customers really want/need. Their vision for the Data Center is practically non-existent. We asked for a discussion about what they are doing compared to Cisco’s data center vision with Nexus 1000v, etc. What we got was some junk about their 10gig CNA – yawn (Not entirely sold on FCoE anyways – iSCSI works pretty well in our environment). Brocade is effectively a niche player in the Ethernet segment, more or less like Arista. Our Brocade rep told us that Brocade as a company expected they were going to have to buy business if they wanted to increase their market share, and their pricing certainly reflected that viewpoint. Based on that, we had serious concerns about the long-term viability of Brocade as a stand-alone company, so we opted to go with Cisco. Cisco knows the business (or at least a significant percentage of it), they at least appear to deliver on what their customers want (although sometimes with smoke and mirrors), and they have a good vision for the Data Center (or at least one that sounds good on paper). Conversely, they really know how to milk their products, and the current blades/fabric modules for the Nexus switches suck. Comparing sheer PPS performance of a Nexus 7k to a Brocade MLX is quite embarrassing for Cisco. Plus, as Lloyd mentioned, the power/cooling requirements of Nexus versus Brocade is absurd – no one could ever accuse Cisco of being “green” in the data center. The wiring closets are reasonably similar as long as you are comparing chassis to chassis and stackable to stackable.

I too dislike the apparent secrecy of Brocade. I can’t find any decent technical material on their website – only basic marketing and sales materials (seems like quite a few niche players play this game). What’s the big secret, Brocade? Our rep offered to get us access, but somehow that never came to fruition. If Cisco, HP, etc really wanted to know what you were up to, they would just buy some Brocade gear along with a Service Contract and get what they are looking for that way.

Second, Brocade should be clearly communicating with their customers – I should not have to wait for themto get around to telling me what’s happening, I need to know now. Tomorrow is too late.

third, the foundry performance has always been good. The features have always been poor. Limited MPLS, limited QoS, limited load balancing and so on.

Fourth, Foundry is used in the leading Exchanges because it is cheap, not because it is good. Internet Exchanges ( especially public IXPs ) are highly price sensitive and use almost no features. Flat out performance is what Foundry did well, therefore they sold well to IXP – not necessarily a good claim for product excellence.

I have seen brocade / foundry do similar sales techniques. Especailly when exaggerating their technical support (before acquisition ) and over claiming features. The customer should always beware sales promises, if you have seen this then it’s your fault for being duped. The capitalist / business process does not allow for honesty,

My final point is about openness, brocade continues to act closed and separate from their customers. They do not make resources available to consultant,s they are not sharing their product road maps or corporate vision. I can only believe that they do not have one. Here is their chance to open up and communicate.

Thanks again for your comment. Good stuff.

Plus, a ton of engineers are being recruited and hired into Brocade. I think it’s only a matter of time until they unveil their strategy and blow people out of the water.

As far as the cool billion Cisco threw at the Nexus line….they still cannot figure out supply chain, the latency is 3x the values I tested with the Foundry MLX and it cannot do MPLS or hold a full Internet routing table. As far as CEE/FCoE capabilities…look for a forklift upgrade in the hardware or a new chassis altogether. IMO, I will NEVER buy Cisco equipment. Their support (Brocade’s is MUCH MUCH better) has gone downhill and their own engineers that write the code are in India…not US. Talk about a language barrier. No offense.

You mention the CLI differences. What exactly are you talking about? I think that the CLI will gain parity over time and what about migration from the Cat 6500 to the Nexus? The CLI differences are more drastic than Cat 6500 to Brocade. The Nexus code is build on their FibreChannel code base on the MDS and it 3 years behind Brocade’s according to Gartner. As far as operationally, the Brocade NMS system can discover and report against Cisco equipment. Can CiscoWorks do that? In addition, Brocade has made public that the NMS from fbrechannel will merge with Foundry’s creating one UNIFIED management platform for IP, fibrechannel, and FCoE.

Another point is IPv6 performance….turn it on on the Nexus line and the performance drops in half. Yeah…I want to be the person to roll out IPv6 capable web hosting to my customer base and then answer questions on why everything got slower. Thanks Cisco! Turn IPv6 routing on the Brocade box….things are still wire speed.

For all you ISPs out there? Don’t listen to this author. Brocade OWNS the top 3 Internet Exchanges IN THE WORLD! http://www.lightreading.com/document.asp?doc_id=188058 How many 10GB trunks can you link together on a Cisco chassis? Answer = 8. How many on Brocade chassis? Answer = 32. 4x scalability advantage.

For virtualized datacenters out there. How many MACs can the Nexus handle? Answer = 128K. How many can Brocade handle? Answer = 1 Million. Gee Cisco…thanks for handling the proliferation of VM in my datacenter. Oh wait! You can’t? Hmm….perhaps another vendor will.

Let’s finally talk about power and cooling! Just look at the facts on the vendors’ respective datasheets. In some cases, it’s startling. From a fibrechannel perspective, Brocade is 1/10th the power….that’s 90% less. On IP/Foundry side, it’s ~30-40% less.

Not to be harsh on Cisco but I have seen them play dirty pool with marketing and in my clients’ networks. They sell/market/design one solution…then when it doesn’t work, they get arrogant or upsell to something that the customer could have gotten for less cost elsewhere. It just amazes me how many people have the Cisco blinders on. If you look at them from a pure technical perspective, the Nexus just isn’t up to snuff. Now, this article was about Brocade but insert most other well respected platforms out there and Cisco from a technical/architecture perspective doesn’t match up. In some cases, they don’t even come close!