What are the ARP and MAC table limits on x440 and x460G2?
Options
- Mark as New
- Bookmark
- Subscribe
- Mute
- Subscribe to RSS Feed
- Get Direct Link
- Report Inappropriate Content
12-22-2015 12:50 PM
Hello everyone,
I'd like to know the ARP and MAC table limits on both the x440 and x460G2, and I wanted to know if there's a per-VLAN limit for MAC addresses or if it's more of a 'global' limit.
Thanks!
Germán.
I'd like to know the ARP and MAC table limits on both the x440 and x460G2, and I wanted to know if there's a per-VLAN limit for MAC addresses or if it's more of a 'global' limit.
Thanks!
Germán.
15 REPLIES 15
Options
- Mark as New
- Bookmark
- Subscribe
- Mute
- Subscribe to RSS Feed
- Get Direct Link
- Report Inappropriate Content
12-22-2015 01:36 PM
Hi Germán,
Below is a link from out website, if you look under Specifications, you'll see every limit (16K FDB entries and 509 ARP entries, if I'm not mistaken)
http://www.extremenetworks.com/product/summit-x440-series
Below is a link from out website, if you look under Specifications, you'll see every limit (16K FDB entries and 509 ARP entries, if I'm not mistaken)
http://www.extremenetworks.com/product/summit-x440-series
Options
- Mark as New
- Bookmark
- Subscribe
- Mute
- Subscribe to RSS Feed
- Get Direct Link
- Report Inappropriate Content
12-22-2015 01:36 PM
I think I missed the last line of your previous post.
The lesson is to read the whole message and not just the main paragraph.
Sorry about that,
The lesson is to read the whole message and not just the main paragraph.
Sorry about that,
Options
- Mark as New
- Bookmark
- Subscribe
- Mute
- Subscribe to RSS Feed
- Get Direct Link
- Report Inappropriate Content
12-22-2015 01:36 PM
Hi,
For L3 I do not recommend to mix with x440 (especially x440 because of their very low L3 capacity). I think I clearly state it above, and your experience proves it.
What I was trying to say in the post above, is that EXOS tries its best. But at the expense of CPU usage and possibly some slow-path... that can be a life saver if you're close to the limit of the lesser one. But no miracle will happen and if too many entries, you're doom.
The x440G1 is hardly a L3 switch imho, you really need to be sure of the (small) size of the network. But EXOS behavior is very interesting with intermediate switches (in a stack) or modules (in a chassis).
For L3 I do not recommend to mix with x440 (especially x440 because of their very low L3 capacity). I think I clearly state it above, and your experience proves it.
What I was trying to say in the post above, is that EXOS tries its best. But at the expense of CPU usage and possibly some slow-path... that can be a life saver if you're close to the limit of the lesser one. But no miracle will happen and if too many entries, you're doom.
The x440G1 is hardly a L3 switch imho, you really need to be sure of the (small) size of the network. But EXOS behavior is very interesting with intermediate switches (in a stack) or modules (in a chassis).
Options
- Mark as New
- Bookmark
- Subscribe
- Mute
- Subscribe to RSS Feed
- Get Direct Link
- Report Inappropriate Content
12-22-2015 01:36 PM
Stephane,
It was my understanding that when stacking 440-G1s with 460-G1s that stack only had access to the table sizes of the 440s.
We actually had to remove 440s from mixed stacks that were routing to because of the limitations they were causing.
Has this changed?
It was my understanding that when stacking 440-G1s with 460-G1s that stack only had access to the table sizes of the 440s.
We actually had to remove 440s from mixed stacks that were routing to because of the limitations they were causing.
Has this changed?
