Re: [load balancing] F5 BIG-IP 6800

From: Shawn Nunley <nunleyIZZATgmail.com>
Date: Fri Feb 11 2005 - 03:41:51 EST

John,

I still stand by that statement 100%. I was not mudslinging, and I am
not picking apart any independent testing methodologies or marketing
claims. Far from it... I still stand by the 3rd party testing claims
we made then and they have never been disputed or proven inaccurate.
To this report positioned as 'performed by an independent lab' is the
ridiculous part. Even Steve admitted that some (or all?) of the tests
were performed by F5. How in the world can that be considered
'independent'?

Nothing has changed, unless maybe if you want to talk about the
architecture of F5 mysteriously becoming very similar to NetScaler,
which I do find flattering.

Was that mudslinging?

Look, I jumped in to this conversation for one reason. Justin made a
very valid point about the testing results, a point that he felt
compelled to make because of the claim that the tests were carried out
by an 'independent' lab. Even the author of the report contradicts
that statement *in the report* so this is nonsense, and the people who
depend on this forum as a source of accurate information deserve to
know that *in addition* to knowing the report is available. Mr.
'arprequest' attacked Justin from under the cloak of anonymity, and I
felt compelled to give my 2 cents on the matter.

I still look forward to truly independent testing such as the tests
carried out by people like Light Reading. It's too bad we don't have
more of those types of bake-offs.

-Shawn

On Thu, 10 Feb 2005 16:33:53 -0800, John Hall <j.hall@f5.com> wrote:
> Referring to this response from you a couple years ago on this list,
> am I to assume that you've now changed your opinion of the purpose
> of this forum regarding each other's marketing claims, or purported
> ones. Has Netscaler's situation changed so dramatically?
>
> Thanks,
> JMH
>
> Shawn Nunley wrote:
>
> >John,
> >
> >While both of our boxes may claim the same functionality in certain
> >areas (DoS, DDoS, connection multiplexing, etc.) there are many
> >differences in implementation that we could argue about. However, I'll
> >not participate in mudslinging here.
> >
> >I'm pretty certain this forum isn't the place to publicly pick apart
> >each other's various marketing claims or testing methodologies. If you
> >are saying that you are ready to be compared to NetScaler in an
> >independently sponsored test, let's talk about that offline and make it
> >happen. Until then, we stand by the results of the 3rd party testing.
> >
> >Shawn Nunley
> >Director, Technology Development
> >NetScaler, Inc.
> >
> >(408) 718-0955 mobile
> >(408) 987-8737 direct
> >(630) 566-7484 fax
> >
> >
> --
> John Hall Test Manager - Switch Team F5 Networks, Inc.
>
> ____________________
> The Load Balancing Mailing List
> Unsubscribe: mailto:majordomo@vegan.net?body=unsubscribe%20lb-l
> Archive: http://vegan.net/lb/archive
> LBDigest: http://lbdigest.com
> MRTG with SLB: http://vegan.net/MRTG
> Hosted by: http://www.tokkisystems.com
>
>

-- 
Shawn Nunley, CISSP
Director, Technology Development
NetScaler, Inc.
____________________
The Load Balancing Mailing List
Unsubscribe:    mailto:majordomo@vegan.net?body=unsubscribe%20lb-l
Archive:        http://vegan.net/lb/archive
LBDigest:       http://lbdigest.com
MRTG with SLB:  http://vegan.net/MRTG
Hosted by:	http://www.tokkisystems.com
Received on Fri Feb 11 04:45:57 2005

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.8 : Fri Feb 11 2005 - 05:05:19 EST