Talk:Cisco Nexus switches

	This article is within the scope of WikiProject Computing, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of computers, computing, and information technology on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.ComputingWikipedia:WikiProject ComputingTemplate:WikiProject ComputingComputing articles
Low	This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.
	This article is supported by Networking task force (assessed as Mid-importance).
	This article is supported by Computer hardware task force (assessed as Low-importance).
	An editor has requested that an image or photograph be added to this article.

Name change[edit]

Hi, title of this lemma was Nexus 7000, but I couldn't find lemmas on the other Nexus switches or the line. As the 7K is only one of the many models of Nexus switches that are all meant for datacentre deployment (even the 1000v) and all running under the modular new OS I decided to change the subject to the whole family of Nexus boxes. Most or all info is taken from the technical and promotional informatio on Cissies own web- so if you have other sources and/or other information itself please edit the current content. Many tks, JanT (talk) 06:31, 28 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Undoing clear out of entire Nexus 5000 series[edit]

I undid the deletion of the section on the Nexus 5000 series. I checked the user who deleted it, but he/she used IP address (no user account) and that IP address had no other edits at all, so couldn't check credibility.

Although Nexus 5000 section might need some cleanup or maybe even an own page with a referral: but couldn't find it. Tonkie (talk) 21:13, 26 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Templates "multiple issues", "primary sources" and "self published"[edit]

In April 2012 LES 952 added above templates to point out to issues with this Wiki article. I'm not sure to what parts of the article these templates refer to: it would be nice if someone who adds these templates also would give more details about the complaints on the Talk page. I do know that the bits on the Nexus 1000V are NOT written by a Cisco employee. Au contraire: that bit was written by someone who works for another tech-firm that also offers their own datacenter and campus grade networking switches (Dell/Force10 in this case). If I understand correctly another complaint is that the article refers to "own" resources: thus resources from the Cisco websites. For pure technical details such as specifications this is imho not only "allowed" but even the best approach. I do agree that for other type of information you shouldn't use "own resources": eg if you would put in the article "the switches are regarded as best in the world" you can't use a Cisco resource to prove that: but if it is about pure technical specification such as number of ports, supported protocols, power usage, dimensions etc etc the tech-specs from the vendor in question is the best resource.

I will validate the article in the upcoming period and remove the above templates if/when (imo) to do so. If you have any comments on that: please give details on this talk page. Thanks, Tonkie (talk) 12:48, 28 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Howdy. I couldn't help but notice that this article claims that the Nexus 1000V works with Hyper-V. This support might be planned, but according to Cisco, this software is not currently for sale. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 208.79.144.52 (talk) 20:50, 8 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Nexus 5000 series using Nexus 2k, 3k and 4k as FEX module[edit]

This wiki is the only place I have ever found the claim that the Nexus 3000 and 4000 can be used as a FEX, and there are no citations for it. This Q&A with Cisco specifically says that the Nexus 3000 can NOT act as a FEX because it is not a line card but a complete switch. I have a pair of Nexus 4k switches that run in stand alone, I assume this is the only mode of operation like the Nexus 3k, but I can't find any documentation that says otherwise. I know original research is forbidden, but in this case I am trying to prove a "negative" where no proof of a "positive" exists, so hopefully this is acceptable. — Preceding unsigned comment added by DracoDan82 (talk • contribs) 21:48, 15 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]