Commitments and Contingencies	3 Months Ended
Sep. 30, 2015
Commitments and Contingencies Disclosure [Abstract]
Commitments and Contingencies	Commitments and Contingencies Purchase Commitments The Company currently has arrangements with contract manufacturers and suppliers for the manufacture of its products. The arrangements allow them to procure long lead-time component inventory based upon a rolling production forecast provided by the Company. The Company is obligated to the purchase of long lead-time component inventory that its contract manufacturer procures in accordance with the forecast, unless the Company gives notice of order cancellation outside of applicable component lead-times. As of September 30, 2015, the Company had non-cancelable commitments to purchase $72.5 million of such inventory. Legal Proceedings The Company may from time to time be party to litigation arising in the course of its business, including, without limitation, allegations relating to commercial transactions, business relationships or intellectual property rights. Such claims, even if not meritorious, could result in the expenditure of significant financial and managerial resources. Litigation in general and intellectual property and securities litigation in particular, can be expensive and disruptive to normal business operations. Moreover, the results of legal proceedings are difficult to predict. In accordance with applicable accounting guidance, the Company records accruals for certain of its outstanding legal proceedings, investigations or claims when it is probable that a liability will be incurred and the amount of loss can be reasonably estimated. The Company evaluates, at least on a quarterly basis, developments in legal proceedings, investigations or claims that could affect the amount of any accrual, as well as any developments that would result in a loss contingency to become both probable and reasonably estimable. When a loss contingency is not both probable and reasonably estimable, the Company does not record a loss accrual. However, if the loss (or an additional loss in excess of any prior accrual) is at least a reasonable possibility and material, then the Company would disclose an estimate of the possible loss or range of loss, if such estimate can be made, or disclose that an estimate cannot be made. The assessment whether a loss is probable or a reasonable possibility, and whether the loss or a range of loss is estimable, involves a series of complex judgments about future events. Even if a loss is reasonably possible, the Company may not be able to estimate a range of possible loss, particularly where (i) the damages sought are substantial or indeterminate, (ii) the proceedings are in the early stages, or (iii) the matters involve novel or unsettled legal theories or a large number of parties. In such cases, there is considerable uncertainty regarding the ultimate resolution of such matters, including the amount of any possible loss, fine or penalty. Accordingly, for current proceedings, except as noted below, the Company is currently unable to estimate any reasonably possible loss or range of possible loss. However, an adverse resolution of one or more of such matters could have a material adverse effect on the Company's results of operations in a particular quarter or fiscal year. 2002 - 2009 ICMS Tax Assessment Matters The State of Sao Paolo (Brazil) denied Enterasys Networks do Brazil Ltda. the use of certain credits derived from the State of Espirito Santo under the terms of the FUNDAP scheme for the tax years of 2002 through 2009. Enterasys’ application to resolve the ICMS Tax Assessments at the administrative level of the Sao Paolo Tax Department under the amnesty relief program (Reference No 3.056.963-1) was denied in March, 2014, by the Sao Paolo Tax Administration. The value of the ICMS tax credits that were disallowed by the Sao Paolo Tax Administration is approximately BR 3,433,914 (or approximately US $0.9 million), plus interest and penalties (that are currently estimated to be approximately US $4.1 million). Possible court fees are estimated to be BR 3,952,598 (or approximately US $1.0 million). On January 10, 2014, Enterasys filed a lawsuit to overturn or reduce the assessment, which lawsuit remains on-going. As part of this lawsuit, Enterasys made a request for a stay of execution, so that no tax foreclosure can be filed until a final ruling is made and no guarantee needs to be presented. On or about October 6, 2014, the preliminary injunction was granted with regard to the stay of execution, and in response to an appeal on the guarantee requirement, the appellant court further ruled on or about January 28, 2015 that no cash deposit (or guarantee) need be made by Enterasys. Given the preliminary nature of the lawsuit, it is premature to assess the likelihood of a particular final outcome. Based on the currently available information, the Company believes the ultimate outcome of this audit will not have material adverse effect on the Company's financial position or overall results of operations. The range of the potential total tax liability related to these matters is estimated to be from US $0 million to US $6.0 million, of which the Company believes US $4.3 million is the best estimate within the range and has recorded an accrual as of the Acquisition Date of Enterasys as such matter relates to the period before the acquisition. Extreme made a demand on April 11, 2014 for a defense from, and indemnification by, Seller of these 2002-2009 ICMS Tax Assessment matters. Seller agreed to assume the defense of these 2002-2009 ICMS Tax Assessment Matters on May 20, 2014. In addition, through the settlement of the Unify Indemnification Suit on June 18, 2015, Seller has agreed to continue to defend Extreme in this matter and to indemnify Extreme for losses related thereto subject to certain conditions. These conditions relate to offsetting of foreign income tax benefits realized by the Company in the connection with the acquisition of Enterasys. Based upon current projections of the foreign income tax benefits to be realized, the Company does not anticipated that any amounts under the indemnification will be due. Hong vs Extreme On October 23, 2015, a complaint was filed for violations of securities laws in the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of California in the name of Jui-Yang Hong, Individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, against the Company, and named defendants Charles W. Berger, Kenneth B. Arola, and John T. Kurtzweil. Plaintiff alleges that defendants violated the securities laws by disseminating materially false and misleading statements and concealing material adverse facts regarding Extreme Networks' current financial condition and growth prospects. Plaintiffs seek damages of an unspecified amount. The Company intends to vigorously defend the suit. Indemnification Obligations Subject to certain limitations, the Company may be obligated to indemnify its current and former directors, officers and employees. These obligations arise under the terms of its certificate of incorporation, its bylaws, applicable contracts, and Delaware and California law. The obligation to indemnify, where applicable, generally means that the Company is required to pay or reimburse, and in certain circumstances the Company has paid or reimbursed, the individuals' reasonable legal expenses and possibly damages and other liabilities incurred in connection with these matters. It is not possible to estimate the maximum potential amount under these indemnification agreements due to the limited history of these claims. The cost to defend the Company and the named individuals could have a material adverse effect on its consolidated financial position, results of operations and cash flows in the future. Recovery of such costs under its directors and officers’ insurance coverage is uncertain. As of September 30, 2015, the Company had no outstanding indemnification claims.

Commitments and Contingencies

Purchase Commitments

The Company currently has arrangements with contract manufacturers and suppliers for the manufacture of its products. The arrangements allow them to procure long lead-time component inventory based upon a rolling production forecast provided by the Company. The Company is obligated to the purchase of long lead-time component inventory that its contract manufacturer procures in accordance with the forecast, unless the Company gives notice of order cancellation outside of applicable component lead-times. As of September 30, 2015, the Company had non-cancelable commitments to purchase $72.5 million of such inventory.

Legal Proceedings

The Company may from time to time be party to litigation arising in the course of its business, including, without limitation, allegations relating to commercial transactions, business relationships or intellectual property rights. Such claims, even if not meritorious, could result in the expenditure of significant financial and managerial resources. Litigation in general and intellectual property and securities litigation in particular, can be expensive and disruptive to normal business operations. Moreover, the results of legal proceedings are difficult to predict.

In accordance with applicable accounting guidance, the Company records accruals for certain of its outstanding legal proceedings, investigations or claims when it is probable that a liability will be incurred and the amount of loss can be reasonably estimated. The Company evaluates, at least on a quarterly basis, developments in legal proceedings, investigations or claims that could affect the amount of any accrual, as well as any developments that would result in a loss contingency to become both probable and reasonably estimable. When a loss contingency is not both probable and reasonably estimable, the Company does not record a loss accrual. However, if the loss (or an additional loss in excess of any prior accrual) is at least a reasonable possibility and material, then the Company would disclose an estimate of the possible loss or range of loss, if such estimate can be made, or disclose that an estimate cannot be made. The assessment whether a loss is probable or a reasonable possibility, and whether the loss or a range of loss is estimable, involves a series of complex judgments about future events. Even if a loss is reasonably possible, the Company may not be able to estimate a range of possible loss, particularly where (i) the damages sought are substantial or indeterminate, (ii) the proceedings are in the early stages, or (iii) the matters involve novel or unsettled legal theories or a large number of parties. In such cases, there is considerable uncertainty regarding the ultimate resolution of such matters, including the amount of any possible loss, fine or penalty. Accordingly, for current proceedings, except as noted below, the Company is currently unable to estimate any reasonably possible loss or range of possible loss. However, an adverse resolution of one or more of such matters could have a material adverse effect on the Company's results of operations in a particular quarter or fiscal year.

2002 - 2009 ICMS Tax Assessment Matters

The State of Sao Paolo (Brazil) denied Enterasys Networks do Brazil Ltda. the use of certain credits derived from the State of Espirito Santo under the terms of the FUNDAP scheme for the tax years of 2002 through 2009. Enterasys’ application to resolve the ICMS Tax Assessments at the administrative level of the Sao Paolo Tax Department under the amnesty relief program (Reference No 3.056.963-1) was denied in March, 2014, by the Sao Paolo Tax Administration. The value of the ICMS tax credits that were disallowed by the Sao Paolo Tax Administration is approximately BR 3,433,914 (or approximately US $0.9 million), plus interest and penalties (that are currently estimated to be approximately US $4.1 million). Possible court fees are estimated to be BR 3,952,598 (or approximately US $1.0 million). On January 10, 2014, Enterasys filed a lawsuit to overturn or reduce the assessment, which lawsuit remains on-going. As part of this lawsuit, Enterasys made a request for a stay of execution, so that no tax foreclosure can be filed until a final ruling is made and no guarantee needs to be presented. On or about October 6, 2014, the preliminary injunction was granted with regard to the stay of execution, and in response to an appeal on the guarantee requirement, the appellant court further ruled on or about January 28, 2015 that no cash deposit (or guarantee) need be made by Enterasys.

Given the preliminary nature of the lawsuit, it is premature to assess the likelihood of a particular final outcome. Based on the currently available information, the Company believes the ultimate outcome of this audit will not have material adverse effect on the Company's financial position or overall results of operations. The range of the potential total tax liability related to these matters is estimated to be from US $0 million to US $6.0 million, of which the Company believes US $4.3 million is the best estimate within the range and has recorded an accrual as of the Acquisition Date of Enterasys as such matter relates to the period before the acquisition.

Extreme made a demand on April 11, 2014 for a defense from, and indemnification by, Seller of these 2002-2009 ICMS Tax Assessment matters. Seller agreed to assume the defense of these 2002-2009 ICMS Tax Assessment Matters on May 20, 2014. In addition, through the settlement of the Unify Indemnification Suit on June 18, 2015, Seller has agreed to continue to defend Extreme in this matter and to indemnify Extreme for losses related thereto subject to certain conditions. These conditions relate to offsetting of foreign income tax benefits realized by the Company in the connection with the acquisition of Enterasys. Based upon current projections of the foreign income tax benefits to be realized, the Company does not anticipated that any amounts under the indemnification will be due.

Hong vs Extreme

On October 23, 2015, a complaint was filed for violations of securities laws in the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of California in the name of Jui-Yang Hong, Individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, against the Company, and named defendants Charles W. Berger, Kenneth B. Arola, and John T. Kurtzweil. Plaintiff alleges that defendants violated the securities laws by disseminating materially false and misleading statements and concealing material adverse facts regarding Extreme Networks' current financial condition and growth prospects. Plaintiffs seek damages of an unspecified amount. The Company intends to vigorously defend the suit.

Indemnification Obligations

Subject to certain limitations, the Company may be obligated to indemnify its current and former directors, officers and employees. These obligations arise under the terms of its certificate of incorporation, its bylaws, applicable contracts, and Delaware and California law. The obligation to indemnify, where applicable, generally means that the Company is required to pay or reimburse, and in certain circumstances the Company has paid or reimbursed, the individuals' reasonable legal expenses and possibly damages and other liabilities incurred in connection with these matters. It is not possible to estimate the maximum potential amount under these indemnification agreements due to the limited history of these claims. The cost to defend the Company and the named individuals could have a material adverse effect on its consolidated financial position, results of operations and cash flows in the future. Recovery of such costs under its directors and officers’ insurance coverage is uncertain. As of September 30, 2015, the Company had no outstanding indemnification claims.