Cat8K vs. N9k for EVPN DCI Solution

[alf]

Hello all,
I want to create a design for DCI of 3 locations. Direct fibre lines between the sites are available, however
I am looking for an intelligent broadcast management. As OTV was an interesting but proprietary technology
I am now thinking of VXLAN EVPN with BGP control plane.
There are white papers from Cisco out there for Nexus 9K (mainly in the context of Multisite VXLAN Fabrics)
as well as for Cat8K.
So my question is: Do you see any Pros and Cons for the Cat8K vs. the N9K for this type of design ?

Thank you for any comment.

regards
Alfred

[M02@rt37 · Accepted solution]

Hello @alf,

Nexus 9000 Series is commonly associated with fabric architectures like ACI or Nexus Dashbord Fabric Controller [NDFC]. These architectures provide centralized policy-based management, automation, and visibility across multiple data center locations, which can be beneficial for complex DCI designs. Nexus 9000 switches have more advanced programmability options, including support for industry-standard APIs like RESTful APIs, JSON, and Python scripting. This enables automation, orchestration, and integration with various SDN solutions and orchestration platforms.

Cat8K offers a versatile and enterprise-grade platform, it may not have the same level of specialization and depth of advanced DCI features as the Nexus 9000 Series. Cat8K switches are primarily enterprise-focused and offer a wide range of capabilities for general-purpose networking needs, including routing, switching, and security features. While they do not integrate with ACI, the Cat8K switches can be managed using Cisco's DNA Center, which provides network automation and policy-based management for enterprise networks.

The Nexus 9000 Series switches offer a rich set of features and capabilities tailored for DCI scenarios. They support technologies like VXLAN, EVPN, and MPLS for efficient network virtualization, multi-tenancy, and seamless connectivity between data centers.

[alf]

M02@rt37, many thanks for your comments. I fully agree that Nexus technology is better for DC fabrics than Catalyst technology.
But the C8000 series is positioned in my view more as router and not as switches. And remember, also OTV was possible on Nexus as well on high-end Routers. So we could generalize this question this way: Ist a DCI overlay better possible with Switching technology or with Routing Technology ?

Again, thank you for anybody joining this discussion.
best regards
Alfred

[M02@rt37 · Accepted solution]

You're welcom @alf,

In terms of DCI overlays, both switching and routing technologies can support overlay protocols like VXLAN or OTV. The choice depends on factors such as the scale of the deployment, required performance, geographic dispersion, integration with existing networks, and specific feature requirements.

Routing Technology == Wide-area connectivity. Routers excel in connecting geographically dispersed data centers or sites, making them suitable for DCI deployments that require long-distance connectivity.

Switching Technology == Built-in fabric capabilities: Switches often have built-in features like vPC, FabricPath, or VXLAN for efficient data center connectivity and scaling.