Cisco Application :: ACE-4710-0.5F-K9 / Redundancy Not Supported Between ACE Module And Appliance

Mar 19, 2012

what is that mean-"Redundancy is not supported between an ACE module and an ACE appliance operating as peers" I'm designing network in which I plan to use ACE-4710-0.5F-K9 appliances.

View 1 Replies

Cisco Application :: ACE 20 (ACE 30) Versus 4710 Appliance Reliability

Jun 21, 2012

In 2008-2010 timeframe, I used the ace 4710 appliances at one customer and kind of liked them. The deployment was not too SSL intensive and B/W requirements were low, but I configured a few HA pairs and that worked well. The configuration was pretty comparable to other Cisco devices; so easy to learn/pick-up.Fast forward to 2011: stepped into an environment, where customer purchased 3 - ACE 20 modules (before I got here), and had multiple issues with them. I found 4 documented TAC cases, and 1 was still open. I started working from December 2011 on getting Cisco to own-up WRT modules but customer by that time had had enough.

The most serious issue was a random reboot, hang or lockup. I wasn’t here to work with them to verify, but that’s eventually what the deal breaker was. Around the February 2012 timeframe, talking to Cisco SE, he revealed Cisco had an independent lab in Switzerland verify that some hardware component on the device had a terminal defect, in which a bit would flip, and force the device to lock or reboot - subject ot radioactive decay or interference.Cisco and the lab attributed this to improper shielding, coupled with defective material in the electronic component; hence the device was highly susceptible to radiation-type errors. This is the kind of stuff you read in doomsday reports! As a result, Cisco was EOL-ing the ACE-20 module. I am trying to get Cisco to replace the ACE-20 modules with something else, but they haven’t been too cooperative. They have also limited their SE/Salseperson presence where I work (Pacific Northwest); and are not too responsive.

I have gotten a verbal agreement to get a credit on prior purchases for the amount this customer spent on the ACE-20 modules. However, the credit is only a few points off their normal discounting model. And Cisco will not go into loss on new product sales. Using example, $100 product would cost me $55 with standard Cisco discounting. Cisco’s cost might be $45 so I will only get another $10 credit on this new purchase.The 3 Cisco ACE-20’s originally cost customer about $100K, so to dwindle this credit down, we would need to purchase about $1-$2 million of new hardware - that's a lot of new gear! And I don’t have any real way of knowing that Cisco is applying the credit honestly, and they won’t put anything in writing. This entire issue has really dampened customer’s impression of Cisco. They had smartnet on the ACE-20’s for 2+ years, but then dumped that after losing faith in the product. Now I am trying to resurrect smartnet to see if Cisco will give us an alternate product.

And to cap it all off, the original Cisco salesperson (who sold customer the ACE’s), has left and went to work for F5! And yes, he has been calling on customer to try to sell some big-IP's! At least there is some humor in all of this. So... Has anyone else had bad experience with ACE-20 module? How about ACE 4710? How to get a reliable working ACE module from Cisco?

View 6 Replies View Related

Cisco Application :: Discovery Protocol On ACE 4710 Appliance

May 26, 2011

My TCOM guys say they do not see the ACE as a CDP neighbor on their switches. Is CDP enabled by default? I cannot find any documentation that suggests this is configuration (like on the Cisco CSS - where it can be enabled, but cannot see its' CDP neighbors).

BTW - The ACE 4710 Appliance documentation uses CDP as acronym for Certificate Revocation List Discovery Point (for SSL CRL's).