s digit al network ar chitecture uba mobile-first campus
TRANSCRIPT
Cisco
System
HPE/Ar
ms Digit
ruba M
DR
A
Mwww.m
tal Netw
vs obile-F
R170402F
April 2017
Miercom miercom.co
work Ar
irst Cam
om
rchitect
mpus
ture
Cisco vs HPMiercom Co
1 - Execu
2 – ProdCisc
HPE
3 – ResiliStac
Con
Test
Resu
Resi
4 - SimpCisc
HPE
Feat
HPE
Resu
Simp
5 - NetwCisc
Mak
Thre
Netw
Netw
6 - Summ
7 - Abou
8 - Abou
9 - Use o
-Aruba: Campopyright © 20
utive Summ
uct Overvieo Software .
Aruba Soft
ient Networcking Techno
figuration O
t Set-up .......
ults ................
lient Netwo
lified Netwoo Quality of
-Aruba SDN
ture Compa
-Aruba VAN
ults ................
plified Netw
work Infrastruo vs HPE-A
king the piec
eats From W
work as an E
work Infrastr
mary .............
ut Miercom
ut Miercom .
of This Repo
pus Comparis017
ary ...............
w ........................................
ware ............
rk Infrastructologies .........
Observations
......................
......................
rk Infrastruc
ork Operatiof Service (Qo
N Applicatio
rison ............
N Controller
......................
work Operati
ucture Securuba Traffic-
ces work tog
Within ............
Enforcer .......
ructure Secu
......................
Performanc
......................
ort .................
son
C
.....................
.....................
......................
......................
ture ....................................
s .....................
......................
......................
cture Summ
ons ................oS) using Ea
ns .................
......................
r Application
......................
on Summar
rity (Traffic A-Analysis Te
gether ..........
......................
......................
urity Summa
.....................
ce Verified T
.....................
.....................
2
Contents
.....................
...........................................
......................
...........................................
......................
......................
......................
ary................
.....................asyQoS ........
......................
......................
ns ..................
......................
ry ..................
Analysis) .....echnology ...
......................
......................
......................
ary ................
.....................
Testing .........
.....................
.....................
.....................
.....................
......................
......................
.....................
......................
......................
......................
......................
......................
.....................
......................
......................
......................
......................
......................
......................
.....................
......................
......................
......................
......................
......................
.....................
.....................
.....................
.....................
.....................
...........................................
......................
...........................................
......................
......................
......................
......................
...........................................
......................
......................
......................
......................
......................
...........................................
......................
......................
......................
......................
.....................
.....................
.....................
.....................
28
......................
......................
......................
......................
......................
......................
......................
......................
......................
......................
......................
......................
......................
......................
......................
......................
......................
......................
......................
......................
......................
......................
......................
......................
......................
......................
......................
DR170402F 8 April 2017
.... 3
.... 4 ... 5
... 6
.... 8 ... 8
... 9
. 10
. 13
. 14
.. 15 . 15
. 16
. 16
. 19
. 20
. 20
.. 21 . 21
. 22
. 23
. 24
. 25
.. 26
.. 27
.. 27
.. 27
Cisco vs HPMiercom Co
1 - ExeMiercomaspects oPackard accordingnetwork
Tests wer1. R2. S3. S
Key Find
Fuldatprofor
Fasless120
Pol1,30netundOptwire
Solnetthre
Based oncampus-wEnterprisCertificapackages
Robert S
CEO Miercom
-Aruba: Campopyright © 20
ecutive Su was engagof competitiEnterprise (g to their remanagemen
re conductedResiliency, focimplifying oecurity, inclu
dings and O
l data captuta can be caoducts use a
analysis.
ster failure s than one s0 seconds; al
licy Automa00 applicatiotwork, includder the covetimizer appeless device
id security.twork as boteats and ano
n the resultswide netwoe, we proud
ation to Ciss for monito
mithers
pus Comparis017
ummary ed by Ciscoive campus-(HPE). The
ecommendednt, control, c
d in three arcusing on coperations, suuding traffic
bservations
ure. With a aptured, wit
a sampling t
recovery. Cecond, with lmost all con
ation. Cisco ons for polic
ding switchiners. HPE-Alication hans; marks traf
Cisco Stealtth a securityomalies and
s of our testrk architectuly award thesco’s campuring, manag
son
o Systems to-network inf
goal was d designs, aonfiguration
reas: ompetitive auch as netwoanalysis for
s:
custom ASICth no impactechnique, a
Cisco modulno impact o
nnections dr
EasyQoS hacy control, ang, routing aruba’s netw
ndles wired ffic only at e
thWatch andy sensor andtake immed
ting and anures and wae Miercom Pus network ement and c
3
o independefrastructuresto assemble
and using thn and monito
rchitecture rork-wide Qothreat detec
C and usingct on switchnd can capt
ar stackingon applicatioopped and h
as built-in band can appand wireless.
work configudevices on
dge devices
d other toolsd enforcer,
diate action t
alysis, compares of CiscPerformance
designs ancontrol.
ently configus from Ciscoe the produeir respectivoring.
robustness oS deploymection and mi
g NetFlow, 1h forwardinture no mor
recovered fon traffic. HPhad to be re
best-practiceply policies e. Most deta
uration throunly; requires.
s deliver graprovide a cto secure the
paring the o and HP e Verified
nd related
ure, operate o Systems aucts of eachve software
ent, and itigation
100 percent g performare than 2 pe
rom every faPE-Aruba rece-established
e QoS policieend-to-end ils are handugh HPE VAs a separate
anular trafficcomplete soe entire cam
28
and then and from Heh vendor stfor campus-
of Cisco netnce. HPE-Aercent of pa
ailure scenacovery took d.
es, supportsacross the eled automatAN and Nete applicatio
c analysis, uslution to ide
mpus network
DR170402F 8 April 2017
assess ewlett trictly -wide
twork Aruba ackets
rio in up to
s over entire tically twork n for
se the entify k.
Cisco vs HPMiercom Co
2 – Pro
Two modthe complatest anAruba, inbelow sulater in th
The Big
The camcampus-wwireless da resilien
A Spirenemploye
The latesindividuadescribedversions
Source: M
-Aruba: Campopyright © 20
oduct Ov
del campus petitive cam
nd most appncluding theummarizes this report.
g Picture: C
pus networkwide netwodevices; an at core switch
nt SPT-N11Ud for the ge
st publically al switches ad more in tthat were te
Miercom April 2
pus Comparis017
verview
networks wempus topolog
propriate ap products frhe key com
Comparab
ks we built ark infrastrucaggregation hing level.
U Mainframeneration of t
available sond software the followinested, the lat
2017
son
ere assemblegies, all thepples-to-approm HPE’s a
mponents fro
le Campu
and tested fcture. Eachlevel featur
e Chassis, wtest traffic.
oftware versipackages cog test secti
test available
4
ed for this teproducts an
ples offeringcquisition o
om both ven
s-Network
featured thr consisted oing resilienc
with test mo
ions for botomprising thons. Here
e in both cas
esting. Miernd their congs from bot
of Aruba Netndors. All a
k Compon
ree-tier archof: an acces
cy and surviv
odules runn
h vendors whe two compare the key
ses as of the
rcom enginenfigurations,th Cisco Sytworks in 20are discusse
ents Teste
itectures – ass layer, for vable switch
ning version
were appliedpetitive camy software c March 2017
28
eers ensured represented
ystems and 015. The gred in more d
ed
appropriate both wired
redundancy
n 4.67 code,
d in all casespus networkcomponents7 testing.
DR170402F 8 April 2017
d that d the HPE-aphic detail
for a d and y; and
, was
s. The ks are s and
Cisco vs HPMiercom Co
Cisco S
Cisco swversion StealthWStealthWnetwork
A key auCisco Apcentral penterpris
APIC-EMseveral ofunctions
D
D
P
Nco(s
Eappo
IWhfa
Cisco Nethe netwincident peak usaalso now
Another which is security gjust an I
-Aruba: Campopyright © 20
oftware
itches ran th8.3 code,
Watch versionWatch’s adv
infrastructur
utomation application Po
art of Cisco’se, branch, ca
features vaof which plas/application
Discovery – A
Device and H
ath Trace – d
Network Plugonfigurationswitches, Acc
asyQoS – croviding enlatform. It f application
WAN – Intellighly intuitiaster deploy
etFlow (see Nwork infrastru
detection. Nage times, a
w widely used
common cosoftware-de
groups. SecuP address o
pus Comparis017
he latest verCisco’s Pr
n 6.8 (see Stvanced secre.
nd orchestraolicy Infrastru’s Digital Neampus, and
arious operaayed key rons:
APIC-EM que
ost Inventor
displays deta
g & Play – n, for a secess Points, w
configures Qd-to-end qalso come
ns.
igent WAN ve, policy-bment for bra
NetFlow) is tucture, redu
NetFlow provnd traffic ro
d in third-pa
omponent sefined segmurity groups or traditiona
son
sion 16.3.1 orime InfrasttealthWatchcurity anal
ation platfoucture Cont
etwork ArchitWAN. Versi
ational modoles in the
eries the netw
ry – gives ac
ails of the ne
lets the admcure push-wireless con
QoS policieuality of se
es with a
(IWAN) Appbased interfaanch offices,
the next-gencing operat
vides valuablouting. Althrty package
supported omentation th
are assignedal ACLs. The
5
of IOS softwtructure ne) was usedlytics unco
rm used in roller Enterptecture, delion 1.4 of AP
es and apptesting we
work to disc
cess to all th
etwork path
ministrator pbutton deptrollers etc.)
s and assigrvice acrosslibrary of
plication simace that sim and over re
neration in fion costs, imle informatiohough a Ciscs for IP traffi
on many Cishat organized based on
ey are easie
ware code. Cetwork-manafor analysis
over sophi
the Cisco toprise Modulevers softwar
PIC-EM was
lications runapplied. T
cover the net
he devices co
taken betwe
pre-configurployment of.
gns them ts multiple labest-practic
plifies WANmplifies SD educes WAN
low technolomproving caon about netco inventionic-flow analy
sco platformes endpointsbusiness decr for admin
Cisco wirelesagement ra of capturedsticated a
opology wae (see APIC-re-defined nrun in our te
nning on thThe APIC-EM
twork topolo
onnected on
een any two
re, or use thf newly co
to devices oayers of wir
ce policies
deploymenWAN man
N complexity
ogy allowingpacity planntwork users n, NetFlow dysis.
ms is TrustSes into logicacisions, usin
nistrators to
28
ss equipmenan version d network tttacks on
s APIC-EM -EM). APIC-E
networking tests.
he base platM includes t
ogy.
n the networ
o devices.
he best-pracnnected de
on the netwred and wirfor a long
nts by providnagement, a and costs.
g optimizatining and secand applicatdata collecti
ec (see Trusal groups, cg criteria beunderstand
DR170402F 8 April 2017
nt ran 3.1.
raffic. the
– the EM, a o the
form, these
rk.
ctices evices
work, reless g list
ding a allows
on of curity tions, ion is
stSec) called eyond d and
Cisco vs HPMiercom Co
manage, rules bas
For Cisco
C
HPE Ar
The devispecifiedacquired technolowhile inncohesive,
The primAruba, wversion KHPE’s leManagemcore anduse in th
A primaEnterprisSoftwareProtector
Even thoNetwork apples cofor BusinBusiness
For moredesign, c
N
A
A
-Aruba: Campopyright © 20
and the nused on IP add
o configurati
isco CVD (C
uba Softw
ices selected in HPE-Aruleading wi
gy into the novative an, unified HPE
mary HPE-Arwas AirWave, KB.16.03, andgacy – andment Center data centeris testing.
ry HPE plate’s Software, version 2.r and Netwo
ough Cisco Optimizer a
omparison, wness, 2016 vGuide.
e informatioonfiguration
Network Opt
Aruba referen
Aruba VRD (V
pus Comparis017
umber of grdresses.
on and best
isco Validate
are
d for the Huba public dreless vendoHPE producd generallyE product ar
ruba networversion 8.2.
d the versiod now somr), which pur networks –
tform for soe-Defined N7, with add
ork Visualizer
APIC-EM Eapplication we tested oversion was
on on thesen and deploy
imizer on HP
nce designs
Validated Re
son
roup-based
t-practices g
ed Design Pr
HPE-Aruba cocuments aor Aruba Nect fold. And good perfchitecture.
rk-managem. The code l
on for HPE-Amewhat comurports to d– mainly for t
oftware defNetwork (SDed licenses r.
EasyQoS apis limited tonly the Skypused for th
e packages, yment, see t
PE-Aruba’s V
Guide and A
ference Des
6
rules is dra
uides:
rogram) guid
campus topnd guides (etworks, whd, as we disformers – h
ment packaglevel for theAruba wirele
mpeting – mdeliver compthe FlexNetw
fined netwoDN) Virtual
for applica
pplication suo only Skyppe for Businehe testing. F
as well as he below lin
VAN Control
Aruba Solutio
ign) guide, s
matically les
de, see Guid
pology and (see links behich broughtscovered in have not be
ge we used,e HPE-Arubaess devices wmanagementprehensive mwork produc
orking, usedApplication
ations like N
upports ovee for Busineess applicatFor configu
HPE-Aruba’snks.
ler Link
ons Exchang
see Guide
ss than an e
de
their configelow). As not its producour testing,een fully as
, as recomm wired switcwas 6.5. It’s t platform, managemenct line, was a
was HPE Networks
Network Op
er 1300 apess. To makion on bothration detai
s best-pract
ge for config
28
equivalent s
guration weted, HPE in cts, software Aruba’s wassimilated in
mended by ching device
noteworthyIMC (Intell
nt across camalso examine
SDN VAN –(VAN) Conttimizer, Net
pplications, ke fair appleh vendors. Sils see Skyp
tices for net
urations
DR170402F 8 April 2017
set of
re as 2015
e and ares – nto a
HPE-s was y that ligent mpus ed for
– HP troller twork
HPE’s es-to-Skype pe for
twork
Cisco vs HPMiercom Co
Test Ca
T
Rinn
Sexe
No
-Aruba: Campopyright © 20
ses
esting was c
Resilient Netncluding the etwork.
implified Oxamining thnd-to-end c
Network Infrn traffic ana
pus Comparis017
conducted in
twork Infrassurvivability
Operations, e ability to rampus infra
rastructure lysis for dete
son
n three areas
structure, y of these ve
readily applystructure.
Security, ecting threat
7
s:
endors’ mod
y features lik
ts.
ular switche
e Quality of
es in a multi-
Service (Qo
28
-level campu
S) across en
DR170402F 8 April 2017
us
tire
Cisco vs HPMiercom Co
3 – Re
In theseand confend useadminist
As illustrbusiness tested thof the tw
Stacking
Cisco 45
Cisco offdirect ba(VSS), wh
Customeredundanthat’s ma
-Aruba: Campopyright © 20
silient Ne
e tests, wefigured baseer’s applicatrator’s persp
ated in the services and
he underlyingwo VSS (Cisco
A stron
g Technolo
07-E
fers resilientackplane cabhich makes d
ers can mernt supervisoanaged as a
pus Comparis017
etwork In
analyzed ed on their tion experiepective.
diagram bed critical appg networks’ o) and VSF (H
ng backbone isto build
ogies
options usbling) or modeployment
rge their mors in each single logica
son
frastructu
Cisco’s andbest-practicence and c
elow, a stronplications. Fsupport of vHPE-Aruba)
s essential to oreliable busin
ing either a odular front and troubles
modular switmember swal device.
8
ure
d HPE-Arube recommencaptured th
ng and resilior both the various applsystems wou
offer a resilienness services a
switch stacplane stack
shooting eas
tches into witch. The re
ba’s solutiondations. Inhe pertinen
ent backbonCisco and Hications acrould fail and
nt underlying and critical ap
ck (switch mking througsier for supp
a VSS arraesult is a hi
ons – whicn addition, wnt view fro
ne is essentHPE-Aruba cooss several ehave to reco
network infra
pplications.
modules that h a virtual s
port staff.
angement, wigh availabil
28
h we depwe evaluated
om the net
tial to suppoonfigurationevents whereover.
astructure
interconnecswitching sy
with optionlity configur
DR170402F 8 April 2017
loyed d the twork
orting ns, we e one
ct via ystem
s for ration
Cisco vs HPMiercom Co
HPE-Aru
HPE-Arubinto one allows sufiber) to
HPE VSF Key draw
Oa
Configu
Cisco casimpler a
We obsescaling inGig link d
Unfortunsupport ttechnoloprotocols
So if the requiremsignifican
-Aruba: Campopyright © 20
uba 5406R
ba’s Virtual virtual logic
upported swbehave like
is supportedwbacks of HP
Only one mannd VSF is su
uration Ob
n scale its and consiste
erved a prodn a three-tiedensity etc.),
nately, fromthe VSF archgy. IRF is qs, we observ
user is deplments, as recnt caveats:
pus Comparis017
Switching Fral device wh
witches conna single-cha
d on Aruba 5PE-Aruba’s V
nagement mpported onl
Modu
bservations
modular stant to configu
duct gap in Her architectu HPE’s answ
a modulahitecture. Raquite differenved that it em
oying a mix ommended
son
ramework (Vhich providesnected to eaassis switch.
5400R seriesVSF are:
module is supy on new v3
ular Stacking
s
acking acroure and man
HPE-Aruba’sure (to supp
wer is to depl
r-stacking pather, they snt from VSFmploys two p
of HPE-Aruin previous
9
VSF) technols high availaach other th
s switches an
pported per 3 modules.
g: Physical-L
ss the aggrnage.
s core-switchort more rooy its FlexNe
perspective, upport the H. Indeed, wproprietary p
ba and HPE-HPE’s Mob
ogy assembability. Virtuahrough Ethe
nd Aruba 29
chassis (lack
Logical View
regation an
hing solutionoutes, Accesetwork 1050
FlexNetwoH3C IRF (Int
while HPE claprotocols ins
-FlexNetworile First Cam
bles multipleal Switching rnet connec
30F switches
ks chassis lev
ws
d core plat
n. If users rs Control Li
00 series swi
ork 10500 selligent Resiaims IRF usestead.
rk products dmpus Design
28
e physical deFramework
ctions (copp
s.
vel redunda
tforms maki
require additsts (ACLs), 1tch in the co
switches doilient Framewes open stan
due to high n, there are
DR170402F 8 April 2017
evices (VSF)
per or
ncy);
ing it
tional 10/40 ore.
o not work) ndard
scale some
Cisco vs HPMiercom Co
• Tfep
• TwdA
Test Set
Shown bthe test power fa
In this tenetwork disruptionetwork
Clients at
IC S V A
-Aruba: Campopyright © 20
he administeatures runnair of distrib
wo completeploying, m
Aruba produc
t-up
elow are thewas to deteilure, device
est, the Spireinfrastructu
on that vinfrastructur
ttached to th
CMP pings, ukype for Bus
Video streamApple screen
pus Comparis017
trator has toning on two bution (VSF-b
tely separateonitoring, mct portfolio a
e physical toermine the failure or lin
ent Test Cenre using 100arious fail re.
he wired and
using Colasosiness Audioing using VLmirroring u
son
o understanseparate opbased) switc
e and disjoimanaging, troand IMC for
opologies forresiliency o
nk error and
Netwo
nter system 00 OSPF rou
scenarios
d wireless ne
oft ping softwo/Video/DeskLC Media Plasing apple A
10
nd, configurperating systhes and core
nted managoubleshootithe HPE-H3
r the Cisco af the netwo recovery sc
ork Topolog
is set to geutes. Spiren
cause to
etwork then
ware ktop Sharingayer AirPlay
re and mantems to achie (IRF-based
gement platng and repoC product p
and HPE-Aruork across scenarios.
gy
enerate bidirnt traffic floo the cli
ran followin
g Call
nage two seeve high av
d) switches.
tforms are torting: AirWaportfolio.
uba network.several poss
rectional traows are usedents conn
ng applicatio
28
eparate resilailability acr
then requireave, for the
. The objectiible outages
affic across ed to quantifected via
ons:
DR170402F 8 April 2017
iency ross a
ed for HPE-
ive of s like
entire fy the
this
Cisco vs HPMiercom Co
Test Obj
Comparestacking
N
D
A
Skyp
-Aruba: Campopyright © 20
jective
e the failoveconfiguratio
Network LeveLayer 3 unicUnicast usesDUTs/SUTs
Device Level ConnectivitCameras anConnectivit
Application LPing Voice/ VideVideo StreaScreen Mirr
pe Audio/ Vide
pus Comparis017
er time seeon. How is th
el cast failover s OSPF routinare configu
y of networnd IoT devicey of user devevel
eo/ Collaboraaming (VLC) roring (AirPla
eo/ Desktop Sh
son
en when Ache network d
times with bng protocol wred with OS
k attached des like Applevices like Wi
ation (Skype
ay)
Spi
haring Call, Vide
11
ctive/ Standdowntime ch
bidirectionalwith 1000 rouPF graceful r
devices like e TV ired Laptop
e for Busines
irent Data
eo Streaming a
by switchesharacterized?
traffic over utes emulaterestart proto
Wireless Ac
and Wireles
ss)
and Ping
s are failed ?
L2-L3 netwoed by Spirentocol extensio
ccess Point,
s Laptop
Apple Scre
28
in the mo
ork t traffic geneons
IP Phones, V
een Mirroring
DR170402F 8 April 2017
odular
erator
Video
Cisco vs HPMiercom Co
The failur
1. Unpowe
2. Un
3. Staconn
4. Plmaint
In each o(packets the durapower or
-Aruba: Campopyright © 20
re-recovery
planned Doer failure or a
planned Do
ack Link Failectivity or ca
anned Dowtenance upg
of these testsper second)tion of dowr connection
pus Comparis017
scenarios te
wntime – Acan unexpect
wntime – St
ure – link bable failure
wntime – Stgrade
s scenarios, t). The dropp
wntime acrosn loss.
son
sted were:
ctive/Commaed hardware
andby goes
etween the
tandby gets
the Spirent Ted packet co
ss the netwo
H
12
ander devicee failure of th
down due t
VSS / VSF b
s a softwar
Test Center ount from thork infrastru
Cisco
HPE-Aruba
e goes downhe Active/Co
to a power fa
boxes is disc
re reboot, s
issued a bi-dhe Spirent octure as the
n due to an uommander
ailure
connected, s
such as for
directional tutput was u
e system rec
28
unexpected
simulating a
r a routine
raffic at 1,00sed to detercovered from
DR170402F 8 April 2017
link-
____
00pps rmine m the
Cisco vs HP-Aruba: Campus Comparison 13 DR170402F Miercom Copyright © 2017 28 April 2017 CiCisccs oo vs HP-Aruba: CCCamMMMMMiMiMiMiMiMMMiMiMiMiMMMiMiMMiMMMMMMiMiMMiMiMiMMiMiMiMMMMiMMMMMMMMMMiMMiMMiMMieeeeeeerereeeeeeeeeee cocoooooom m mm mmmmm CoCoCCC pyppp rightt ©©© 2
Results
The results from the failure-recovery tests are shown in the graph below.
These tests were run multiple times and generally gave consistent results across the runs. The results shown here represent a typical run.
HPE-Aruba exhibits significant outage of over 120 seconds during unplanned downtime, which results in:
• Network downtime (causing business disruption, lost revenue and user productivity).
• Unacceptable impact on the infrastructure devices for wired and wireless like access points, phones, IoT devices, surveillance cameras and video endpoints.
• Poor application experience especially on time sensitive applications – failure of voice/video calls, IP Phones, video streaming services and screen mirroring.
Source: Miercom April 2017
Cisco vs HPMiercom Co
Resilien
In all cadowntimimportan
The HPE-What’s mdue maiwireless cexcept fosoftware dropped
Cisco’s roTraffic. Cimpactin
The Arubwireless,
Cisco’s stacking
-Aruba: Campopyright © 20
nt Network
ses, the Cise, as calcul
ntly, all the te
-Aruba inframore, HPE-Anly, we obscontroller duor the shorreboot. Ththeir conne
obust moduisco maintaig applicatio
ba Mobile-Fimpacting e
mature andtechnology.
pus Comparis017
k Infrastruc
sco infrastruated by theest applicatio
structure doAruba wirelesserved, to thuring each ftest 7.85 se
he Skype, thections in all
lar stacking ned end-to-n performan
First Campuend-user exp
d proven
son
cture Summ
ucture recove Spirent drons showed
owntimes wess clients exhe HPE-Aruailure. The econds dowe video strecases while
architecture-end networnce and end-
s infrastructperience and
stacking te
14
mary
vered from ropped-packno discerna
ere significanxperienced sba APs (AcColasoft pin
wntime durineaming and the VSF netw
e was able tork connectiv-user experie
ture failed t network ou
echnology d
each failureket method.able disruptio
ntly longer isignificant imcess Points)
ng stream sung planned the Apple swork infrastr
o demonstraity for wiredence
to maintainutage for ove
demonstrate
e scenario w. What’s mon in service
in all of the mpacts on th) losing con
uffered ping downtime
screen-mirroructure was
ate sub-secod and wireles
connectiviter a minute
ed superior
28
with sub-semore, and jue.
tested scenhe applicationnection to drops in all simulation
oring applicarecovering.
nd failover fss clients wit
ty for wired
rity over A
DR170402F 8 April 2017
econd ust as
arios. ons – their tests
using ations
for L3 thout
d and
Aruba
Cisco vs HPMiercom Co
4 - Sim
In this teperformibranchesacross msignifican
CollectiveSDN, (Sonetwork terms of SDN cap
We comHPE-Arubtwo comsettings a
Cisco Q
In Cisco‘using EaControlle
EasyQoS priority qend orchapplicatioapplying EasyQoS/
-Aruba: Campopyright © 20
mplified N
esting, we song complexs, and so on
multiple platfnt time and c
ely, such enoftware-Defi
operations, bandwidth aabilities are
pared the mba to gaugepetitive netwacross the n
Quality of S
‘s controllersyQoS, an a
er- Enterprise
is designedqueues acrohestration ofon features QoS policie
/APIC-EM do
pus Comparis017
Network O
ought to comx configuratin. By enablforms on ancosts.
nd-to-end oned Networwhere cust
allocation, realso now av
managemente the capabiwork foundaetwork.
Service (Qo
r-led networapplication te Module).
to make asss network
f QoS in the a fairly stra
es. The opeoes much of
son
Operatio
mpare the von and opeing the usen end-to-en
operations arking). SDNtom networesilience, Quailable to en
t and enforlity and ease
ations. Our t
oS) using E
rking, end-tthat runs on
transparentplatforms, bEnterprise n
aightforwarderator expresf the rest und
15
ns
vendors’ infrerations acror to apply s
nd basis req
nd networkN has long k settings c
uality of Servnterprise net
rcement of oe of use invtesting focu
EasyQoS
to-end netwn Cisco’s AP
t as possibleboth wired anetwork, imp GUI with bsses the busder the hood
rastructures oss various nsuch measurquires less s
k-wide confibeen used
can be centvice (QoS), atworks.
operational olved with esed on appl
work quality PIC-EM (App
e the otherwand wirelessplementing cbuilt-in recosiness relevad.
and applicanetwork eleres simply astaff experti
guration hato describe
trally and rend so on. M
policies beteffective maying QoS co
of service plication Pol
wise complex. EasyQoS consistent Qmmended bance of app
28
ations in termments, locat
and transparse and can
ave been teservice-pro
eadily defineMuch of the
tween Cisconagement o
onfiguration
is accomplicy Infrastru
x configuratiprovides en
QoS policies.best practiceplications and
DR170402F 8 April 2017
ms of tions, rently
save
rmed ovider ed, in same
o and of the s and
ished ucture
on of d-to-. The es for d the
Cisco vs HPMiercom Co
HPE-Ar
HPE’s eqVAN (Virsome fea
IncoS(Aef
TQ(D
FoCadh
HPE doeother aphomegro
We notemore, mHPE platf
Feature
Our asseOptimizebest prac
1. P2. P
ag3. B
co
The task applicatio
-Aruba: Campopyright © 20
ruba SDN
uivalent apprtual Applicaatures and fu
n a campuonfigurationDN ControllAruba VRD).ffort for polihe Network
QoS only oDifferentiateor Skype foontroller andministratoronoring cor
s sponsor anplications o
own applicat
d that thirdmany of the
forms.
e Comparis
essment of ter (HPE VANctices from t
olicy Creatioolicy Enforceggregation areadth of Control, and i
we undertoons, across m
pus Comparis017
Applicatio
plication to Cations Netwunctions lack
us deploymns for wired er, and the In a HPE-icy creation,
k Optimizer on wired, ed Services C
or Business nd Mobility r needs to rect DSCP m
n SDN App r automatedtions: the Ne
-party applicpartner ap
son
the two comN) – covered
he current re
on and Manaement – conand core sw
Coverage – nvestment p
ook, then, wmulti-tiered
son
ns
Cisco’s Easywork) SDN cking when co
ment, the nand wireleswireless conAruba wiredoperations aapplication
edge/access Code Point) t
end-to-endController
make sure markings.
Store, whichd-managemeetwork Optim
cations are pplications a
mpeting soft the followieleased doc
agement – thnsistently apitches, wiredthe number
protection fo
was to creatswitching an
16
QoS is the Ncontroller. Oompared to
network ads. For examnfiguration ud and wireleand manageaddresses a
switches traffic at the d QoS, the separately tevery hop t
h we exploreent capabilit
mizer, and tw
not tested, are fairly ol
tware packang functionumentation
he ease of crpplying policd as well as wr of supporor future app
te and applynd wireless n
Network OpOur experieEasyQoS. Fo
ministrator ple, wired cusing Arubaess environmement. a fairly narro(no wirelesedge. administratoto achieve throughout
ed to make ties. We fouwo others ca
validated ord and app
ges – EasyQal areas, in for each pro
reating and cies across ewireless and rted applicatplications
y end-to-ennetworks po
ptimizer, whience with Oor example:
has to ponfiguration Wireless Mment, there
ow QoS winss), and on
or needs tosame resultthe networ
sure we weund just thrlled Protecto
r supported arently wor
QoS (APIC-Eall cases us
oduct:
managing pevery networ
routers) tions/traffic
nd QoS policrtions.
28
ch runs on ptimizer sho
erform sepn using HPE obility Contis duplicatio
ndow. It supnly marks
o configure ts. Moreoverk and WAN
ren’t missingree HPE-branor and Visua
by HPE. Wrk only on
EM) and Netsing the stan
policies rk device (ac
types for p
cies, for mu
DR170402F 8 April 2017
HPE’s owed
parate VAN
troller on of
pports DSCP
VAN r the
N are
g any nded, alizer.
What’s older
twork ndard
ccess,
policy
ultiple
Cisco vs HPMiercom Co
QoS Con
The procconsistin
EasyQoS
Cisco offbusiness YouTubeweb serv
-Aruba: Campopyright © 20
nfiguration,
cess starts wg of entire n
S - Applicati
fers a built-application
e, Netflix, Airvices, file hos
pus Comparis017
via Cisco A
ith the Toponetwork inclu
ion Registry
-in applicatins like JabbePlay etc. Ciscsting or vide
son
APIC-EM
ology View ouding switch
y
on registry er, Spark, Sco also offero hosting se
17
of the Cisco hes, routers,
with more Skype for Burs ability to aervices.
APIC-EM SDwireless con
than 1300 usiness andadd customi
DN Controllentrollers and
applications consumer ized applicat
28
er (shown be access poin
s which incapplicationstions like int
DR170402F 8 April 2017
elow), nts.
ludes s like ternal
Cisco vs HPMiercom Co
EasyQoS
The finalprompts details toknow theof the ac
-Aruba: Campopyright © 20
S – Apply Po
step is the the Cisco A
o the apprope complexitietual devices
pus Comparis017
olicy
application APIC-EM SDNpriate devicees involved w.
son
of the policN Controller
es – all underwith the und
18
cy, also donr to automar the covers.derlying dev
e via a straiatically issue . Administra
vices and op
ghtforward the necessator or User ierating syste
28
GUI. This aary configuris not requirems and ver
DR170402F 8 April 2017
action ration red to rsions
Cisco vs HPMiercom Co
HPE-Ar
HPE VAN
A fairly below), o
HPE VAN
Similar tohosts. BHoweverconnectiv
HPE Net
HPE-Arubto Cisco only for ewireless c
VAN SDNswitch. Trule for tsimilar de
-Aruba: Campopyright © 20
ruba VAN
N SDN Cont
lean set of one of which
N Controller
o Cisco’s TopBut wireless r, the topovity, link det
twork Optim
ba requires tEasyQoS whedge switchecontrollers.
N Controller hey apply thhe Skype forevice policie
pus Comparis017
Controller
troller
applications is the Netw
r Topology
pology Viewequipment
ology view ails etc.
mizer
the user to chich uses buies which aga
and Networhe policy on r Business tr
es beyond th
son
r Applicatio
s can be fowork Optimiz
View – Only
w, HPE VAN pt including A
misses co
create manult-in best prain forces ad
rk Optimizerthe switch u
raffic flow. It’e edge switc
19
ons
ound under zer for apply
y Switches a
provides a toAccess Poin
omprehensiv
al profiles foactices. Mor
dministrator
r have knowlusing OpenF’s up to the ches.
the HPE VAing QoS pol
and Hosts (
opology vients (APs) anve informat
or various Qoreover theseto create sim
ledge of wirelow to confiadministrato
AN Controlicies.
(not wireles
w that inclund routers ation about
oS configurae configuratiomilar policie
ed users congure a specior to configu
28
ler package
ss and route
des switchesare not inclu
device ve
ations, compons are valids separately
nnected to aific remarkinure and main
DR170402F 8 April 2017
e (see
ers)
s and uded. rsion,
pared d
on
a ng ntain
Cisco vs HPMiercom Co
Results
EaCcopco
End-to-edevice in
Variety osupport future tra
Unified MHPE-ArubControllemodule Whereas duplicatio
Simplifie
For the ccapabilitiand wirebasis, and
Cisco’s Eswitches,different commantransparebusiness-
Except fowithin thcritical to
There aoversubsaddition,such as O
-Aruba: Campopyright © 20
ase of creatiisco APIC-EMonfigure anortions. Wontrol: VAN
end policies the network
of supportefor over 1,3
affic types. T
Managemenba requires ers. IMC is r(SDN Mana
the rest oon, addition
ed Netwo
riteria and oies of HPE-Aless networkd in the scop
EasyQoS is c, and wirelesdevice operds were puently to th-drive mode
or edge-acche infrastruco achieving c
re multiple scribed. This Network O
Oracle, SAP o
pus Comparis017
ing policies M applicatiod apply poith HPE-Arufor wired ne
– The Cisck. HPE-Arub
ed applicatio300 applicaThe HPE-Aru
t – Based onanother pi
recommendeger) is requof the netwal licensing
rk Operati
objectives weAruba’s Netwk equipmentpe of applica
capable of css APs and drating system
ushed out toe network
el.
cess switcheture. That
consistent en
congestions is not add
Optimizer caor Salesforce
son
– We concluons, such as licies for Qo
uba, two disetwork portio
co APIC-EMba applicatio
ons/traffic ttions/traffic
uba applicati
n HPE-Arubaece of maned as the stuired for inswork requireand platform
on Summ
e assessed, twork Optimizt and portioations and tr
configuringdevices) forms. In one oo network administrat
es, HPE-Arubis where thend-to-end Q
n points aressed by Hnnot dynam
e.
20
uded that CiPath Trace, oS control –screte applicons, and Mo
addresses on applies po
ypes – Thetypes, prov
ion supports
a’s VRD guidnagement ptandard manstallation toes AirWave m lifecycle m
ary
the Cisco Easzer, especialns, in the abraffic types a
QoS across over 1,300 a
of our tests, nodes in oor. The Ea
ba requires e bulk of Q
QoS across th
cross the HPE-Aruba’s mically priori
isco EasyQoSprovides a s– for both cations are obility Contro
policies forolicies only a
e Cisco Easyviding invess only one –
de, if customlatform to nagement too manage a
managememanagement
syQoS applily in consolibility to appalready defin
40 networkapplicationsmore than
ne minute syQoS solu
customers QoS-configurhe router/sw
network asVAN/Netwoitize other b
S, along witstraightforwawired and required to oller for wire
r every wireat the netwo
yQoS envirostment protSkype for B
mers requiremanage muool for VAN cluster of ent platformt.
cation clearlidated suppo
ply policies oned and sup
k devices (ins/Traffic type25,500 lines– all under
ution provid
to provisioration compwitch/wireles
s some linkork Optimizebusiness crit
28
h other pertard, single swireless netimplement
eless.
ed-wireless-ork’s access e
onment incection for uusiness.
e additional ultiple VAN
N, and a sepVAN contro
m which cr
ly far exceedort of both w
on an end-toported.
ncluding roues, and acros of configurr the coversdes a simp
on QoS manlexity lies, as infrastruct
ks are nater applicatiotical traffic t
DR170402F 8 April 2017
tinent ite to twork QoS
WAN edge.
ludes users’
scale, SDN
parate ollers. reates
ds the wired o-end
uters, ss six ration s and lified,
nually and is ure.
urally n. In types,
Cisco vs HPMiercom Co
5 - Ne
Cisco vs
Cisco’s NCatalyst (Applicatwithout iflow thro
By compout of ev
This key view, whtoday’s tmany paview the spot and
Cisco’s ncollectivework ind
Cisco Steemploys the netwManagem
-Aruba: Campopyright © 20
twork Inf
s HPE-Aru
NetFlow techfamily of sw
tion-Specificimpacting sw
ough all Cisco
arison, HPE-very 50 passi
difference ehich can be hreats – notckets. By obcontext of
isolate them
network-secely, help seependently.
ealthWatch advanced s
work as a rement Consol
pus Comparis017
frastructu
uba Traffic-
hnology is switches leve Integrated witching pero UADP bas
-Aruba sampng packets.
enables Ciscofurther pro
tably malwarbserving the suspect thr
m.
urity portfoecure the n
uses NetFloecurity analy
eal-time secle, Collector
son
ure Secur
-Analysis T
supported aerage Cisco’
Circuit) to rformance. Ted switches
ples traffic to This differe
o traffic moocessed for re, worms anentire sequ
reats, match
olio (Cisco network infr
ow or sFlowytics to examurity sensorand Sensor
21
ity (Traffi
Technolog
cross many ’s UADP (Unenable full
This allows mon the netw
o be captureence is illustr
nitoring andaccurate thnd similar exence of susp signatures
Security Sorastructure.
w to providemine flows ar and enforccomponent
c Analysi
gy
wired-wirelnified Acces NetFlow a
monitoring owork.
ed using sFlorated in the f
d analysis tohreat analysixecutable filpect packetsof known t
olutions) co Some of
e visibility aand uncovercer to bolstts make up t
is)
less-routing ss Data Planand real-timof 100 perce
ow, which cofigure below
o gain a mucis. That’s bles – are coms, analytic sothreats, and
ntains variothis work
across the r attacks. Stter threat dhe StealthW
28
platforms.ne) custom e traffic anent of the p
ollects at besw.
ch more grabecause manmmunicatedftware can bmore accur
ous tools wtogether; o
network. ThtealthWatchefenses. Dis
Watch system
DR170402F 8 April 2017
Cisco ASIC alysis acket
st one
anular ny of
d over better rately
which, others
hen it uses
screte m.
Cisco vs HPMiercom Co
Cisco Ideand enfoIts goal is
Cisco Truuser’s or on the ta
Making
The belopreviouslEngine mbeing apthe tag a
HPE-Arub H
pto
HC
-Aruba: Campopyright © 20
entity Servicorcement of s simplify ide
ustSec, a sedevice’s traf
ag, everywhe
the piece
w graphic illly, are dyna
maintains thepplied to eac
nd undertak
ba’s securityHPE-Aruba c
rovides traffo false alarm
HPE Flow is oisco NetFlow
pus Comparis017
ces Engine (security andentity manag
curity capabffic when it eere in the ne
es work tog
lustrates themically distre informatioch user’s trafkes the appr
y approach scaptures traffic analysis w
ms or blurredonly supportw can captur
son
ISE), a netwd access poligement acro
bility where enters the network infrast
gether
e interaction ributed to an on specififfic. Each deopriate actio
howed someffic for anawith conside analysis. ted on switcre full stream
22
work-adminiscies for end
oss diverse d
a tag (calleetwork, and tructure.
of the Ciscoll network nc users and
evice in the non.
e significantlysis based rably less ev
ches; there ims from any
strator applipoint device
devices and a
ed Security Gthen the acc
o security elenodes and d
groups, resnetwork, as
t differenceson a samp
vidence to si
s no flow sonetwork dev
ication, enabes connectedapplications
Group Tag) cess policy i
ements. Policdevices. The sulting in seca coordinat
. For examppling procesift through w
olution with vice.
28
bles the cred to the netw.
is assigneds enforced b
cies, as discuIdentity Ser
curity grouped whole, ch
ple: ss (sFlow), wwhich often
wireless de
DR170402F 8 April 2017
eation work.
to a based
ussed rvices
p tags hecks
which leads
vices.
Cisco vs HPMiercom Co
Threats
Security aThings) dcompromreferred and not n
As notedcan go uthreats a
Several tcampus generic cpacket-caopen or target syservices a
What wemore mebut a simsource of
-Aruba: Campopyright © 20
From Wit
attacks emedevices, usermises can octo as East-Wnecessarily f
d, HPE-Arubnnoticed. Gnd then take
tests were networks.
continuous papture technaccessible p
ystems. Whare active an
found was teaningful resmple double-f the suspec
Cisco
pus Comparis017
thin
rge from mars themselveccur from traWest traffic from the out
a security foGranular traffe corrective
run with StSeveral typ
ping and httniques. An protocols anen response
nd open, and
that with fulsults. Suspe-click drill-dt traffic.
son
any unexpeces, BotNets, affic flowingflows, since ttside.
ocuses on afic-flow anaactions
tealthWatchpical threats tp traffic. Onmap port sd ports in nes are receivd these are u
l data captuect packets aown lets the
23
cted sources ransomware
g inside a brthey origina
access switchlysis is extre
analyzing twere inclu
One in particscan was coetwork devived back, it used for subs
re, via NetFland flows are user gain m
– like end-ue, malware, ranch or insiate and targe
hes, and so emely import
the captureded in the
cular highligonducted. Sices and hosis clear tha
sequent atta
low, the admre not just idmore detaile
user devicesand so on. ide the HQ. et nodes wit
internally gtant at every
ed data frompacket stre
hted this mauch a scan, sts, involves at certain poacks.
ministrator isdentified as ed informati
28
, IoTs (InternIndeed, net These are thin the netw
generated thy level to ide
m both veneams along ajor differendesigned tomany queri
orts and pro
s presented mpossible th
on, includin
DR170402F 8 April 2017
net of twork often work,
hreats entify
ndors’ with
nce in o find ies to
otocol
much reats, g the
Cisco vs HPMiercom Co
H
The resuit turns odecisions
The Steashows coand can being ide
Cisco infrpackets w
Networ
Once daCisco Trenhancesthreats. Tcreate ac
-Aruba: Campopyright © 20
HPE-Aruba
lts of the Steout. Fewer ss and correct
althWatch donsiderable ddrill down t
entified as a
rastructure, wwere caught
rk as an En
ta is collectustSec techs your abilitThe functionccess and seg
pus Comparis017
ealthWatch suspected thtive action.
isplay belowdetail on suto find the ssecurity eve
with NetFlowand identifi
nforcer
ed by the Nnology—is ty to limit tality is built gmentation
son
analysis of threats are idMost of the
w, from thespected thre
source and aent
w capturing ed.
Network as a software-
the security into the Cispolicies in IS
24
the HPE-Aruentified, andresults are s
e Cisco infraeats. The usapply enforc
100 percent
a Sensor, th-defined segattack surf
co networkiSE, which co
uba data capd few detailssimply show
astructure user can see tcement actio
t of traffic, al
he Network gmentation
face and qung hardwarentrols the ne
pture are mus are include
wn as unclass
using NetFlothe size of ton. For exam
ll of the thre
as an Enforand respo
uickly take ae and gives etwork and a
28
uch more limed to aid secsified.
ow data caphe threat str
mple: Port Sc
eatening sca
rcer—enablense system
action to coyou the abilallows you t
DR170402F 8 April 2017
mited, curity
pture, ream, can is
n
ed by that
ontain ity to o:
Cisco vs HPMiercom Co
• S
• T
We usedaltogetheaction in on how quarantin
Networ
Cisco’s UimpactinProVisionto impleAruba ca
-Aruba: Campopyright © 20
egment you
ake immedia
d ISE to creaer, or quaranthe Cisco inpolicies are
ne the offen
rk Infrastru
UADP customg the switchn ASIC. Howmentation lnnot identit
pus Comparis017
r network in
ate action to
ate a policy ntined until nfrastructuree defined, thding PC.
ucture Secu
m ASIC enabhing performwever, their simitations, ay the threats
son
nto security g
o contain a t
to contain it is fixed o
e was easier he TrustSec
urity Summ
bles full Netmance. HPE-switches weras well as ts, they canno
25
groups to pr
hreat
the threat sor remediate
and faster tpolicy segm
mary
tFlow captur-Aruba statere unable to the samplinot contain th
rotect and re
so its accessed. We foundthan with HPmentation a
res and real-es that it off
detect multg data-capthe threat.
educe threat
s can be resd that applyPE-Aruba. Inpplication c
-time trafficfers a flexibletiple events –ture techno
28
t proliferatio
stricted, remying enforcen fact, depencan automat
analysis wite, programm– due, we belogy. Since
DR170402F 8 April 2017
on
moved ement nding tically
thout mable elieve HPE-
Cisco vs HPMiercom Co
6 - Sum
Our evaluand the includingfunctionaMost notconfigura
Cisco’s sfound thquick, in recovery to be rec
Cisco’s indata streswitch-fo
The secuand straito mitigathreats a
In additioDefined orchestradeploy. T
-Aruba: Campopyright © 20
mmary
uation foundability to a
g wired andal layers, butteworthy, wation applica
tacking caphat Cisco sup
fact, that nedelays were
connected.
nvestment ineams can beorwarding pe
urity tools thghtforward tate threats. nd anomalie
on, the CiscNetworking
ation of QoSThe APIC-EM
pus Comparis017
d that Cisco apply configd wireless t we found s
wireless and ations.
pabilities offepports sub-either users e as long as
n custom sile captured erformance.
hat compriseto use, using We found
es and take i
co APIC-EM,g). We coS in the enteM controller
son
offers a robguration andportions. Hserious limitawired netwo
er solid resisecond failonor applicat120 second
licon ASICs in real-time
e Cisco’s thrg the networ that, with mmediate a
, with numeonclude tharprise netwodoes most o
26
bust networkd security sPE-Aruba oations at theork portions
ilience and over recovertions are im
ds, and all ap
makes a big and securit
reat-detectiork as a sensoall security
action to sec
erous applicat one of ork, making of the comp
k infrastructusettings acrooffers similae higher cons are handle
ability to wry in all scenpacted. In tpplication co
g differencety-analyzed,
on and mitigor for threate
applicationure an entire
cations, offerthese, Eas
QoS policy dlex and tedio
ure with imposs the ent
ar equipmentrol and con
ed by disjoin
withstand fainarios we tethe HPE-Aruonnections d
e with NetFlo, with no im
gation portfening traffics at play, we campus ne
rs real-worldsyQoS, enabdefinition simous work un
28
pressive resiltire productnt at the lonfiguration lanted contro
ilures. Our ested. This uba infrastrudropped and
ow, where wmpact on re
folio are effec, and an enfwe could ideetwork.
d SDN (Softbles end-tomple and ea
nder the hoo
DR170402F 8 April 2017
iency line, ower, ayers. l and
tests is so
ucture d had
whole egular
ective forcer entify
tware o-end asy to od.
Cisco vs HPMiercom Co
7 - Ab
This repoindependassessmethe sponsponsorireport su
8 - Ab
Miercomperiodicatest cente
Private teindividuaincludingProductsthorough
9 - Use
Every effand/or ovarious trelies on beyond o
This docundertakindirect, this repo
No part permissioby their your ownor in a mus or our
-Aruba: Campopyright © 20
out Mier
ort was spodently by Ment. Testingnsoring venng vendor, a
uch as this on
out Mier
has publisals and otheer is undispu
est services al product evg: Certified may also b
h and trusted
e of This
fort was maoversights catest tools, th
certain repour control t
cument is pking, whethefor the accurt.
of any docuon of Miercorespective on trademark
manner whichr information
pus Comparis017
com Perf
onsored by Miercom engg such as thindor. The and either vane, independ
com
hed hundreer publicatiouted.
available frvaluations. MInteroperab
be evaluatedd assessmen
Report
de to ensuran occur. The accuracy resentationsto verify to 1
provided “aser express orracy, comple
ument may bom or Ciscoowners. You s in connecth may be con, projects o
son
formance
Cisco Systegineers and is is based otest cases alidate or redently publis
eds of netwons. Miercom
rom MiercomMiercom featble, Certifiedd under the nt for produc
re the accurThe informaof which is
s by the ven100 percent c
s is,” by Mr implied, aneteness, use
be reproduco Systems, In
agree not ttion with annfusing, misr developme
27
e Verified
ems, Inc. Tlab-test sta
on a methodare designepudiate thoshed by Mie
work-productm’s reputatio
m include ctures comprd Reliable, Performanc
ct usability a
racy of the dation docums beyond oundors that wcertainty.
iercom andnd accepts nfulness or su
ced, in wholenc. All trademto use any ty activities,
sleading or dents.
d Testing
The data waaff as part odology that ed to focusse claims. T
ercom.
t-comparisoon as the le
ompetitive rehensive ceCertified S
ce Verified pand performa
data containmented in thur control.
were reasona
d gives no no legal respuitability of a
e or in part,marks used trademark inproducts or
deceptive or
as obtained of our Perfois jointly co
s on specifThe results a
on analyses eading, inde
product anaertification anSecure and program, theance.
ned in this rhis report mFurthermor
ably verified
warranty, reponsibility, wany informa
, without thein the docu
n or as the r services whr in a manne
28
completelyormance Veo-developedic claims ore presented
in leading pendent pro
alyses, as wnd test progCertified G
e industry’s
report but emay also ree, the docuby Miercom
epresentatiowhether diretion contain
e specific wument are owwhole or pa
hich are not er that dispa
DR170402F 8 April 2017
y and erified d with f the d in a
trade oduct
ell as grams Green.
most
errors ly on ment
m but
on or ect or ned in
ritten wned art of ours, rages