I am having some trouble getting the difference of the AVS Appliance vs. the ACE Modul for the Cat6K.
Our ACE Moduls are already about to be shipped so i am looking forward to get my hands on those. Checking the Application Solution Section there is also the "new aquired" AVS Appliance listed.
A: Is the AVS a Supplement to the ACE Modul in Areas of HTTP,SSL Compression etc. and more granular Payload Inspection?
B: Is the AVS a "rival" product with different features?
We have some discussions regarding the enhancement of our Portal-Infrastructure and some guys are always putting Netscaler from Citrix on the Agenda. I am sure it is a nice product but i like to keep my Enviroment as far Cisco as i can.
That's why it would be nice to get some advice on how to rate, position or compare the ACE,AVS vs. the Netscaler Solution. I have the feeling some of the features which are in the mentioned Netscaler are splitted into two Cisco products.
AVS provides performance optimization , monitoring & Security for "WEB based Applications".
AVS is implemented as an Application proxy. This means that beyond simply processing or caching application stream , It maintains intelligence about whats happening on the network. AVS reduces the traffic between enduser and application server.
AVS devices are placed behind loadbalancers. In loadbalanced environments one vip (lets say vip1) is defined for AVS appliances and 2nd vip (vip2) is assigned to APPs servers.
When client makes a request to the application, loadbalancer (ACE/CSM/CSS) forwards the traffic to AVS pool. The selected AVS device then makes a request to vip2 (appsevrer vip).The response from app server is then processed by AVS appliance and sent back to user.
I am testing our ACE Modules with the Portal Application.
Once i have finished that i can give you a bit more info on the transition.
Anyway i think those ACE'es are a nice replacement for the CSS but i have the feeling the SW is still a bit buggy. I have a lot of strange behaviour right now which i can't fully explain so far. Having a look at the Bugtool convinces me of my theory that the SW needs a bit more work. Hope they have a bugfixed Release soon.
Config wise i feel much more comfortable with them compared to the CSS'es.
VMware Trunk Port Group is supported from ACI version 2.1
VMM integration must be configured properly
ASA device package must be uploaded to APIC
ASAv version must be compatible with ACI and device package version
In the Previous articles of ACI Automation, we are using Postman/Newman as the Rest API tool to automate the ACI Configuration.
In this article I’m going to discuss on usin...
One of the first steps in building your ACI Fabric is to go through Fabric Discovery. While Fabric Discovery is usually a straightforward process, there are various issues that may prevent you from discovering an ACI switch. This article wil...