I currellty use 480s with MS-DPCs. Lately I've been considering making a VC from them in order to achieve redundancy on the MS-DPC. (For CGNAT in my case)
The real question is what are you implementing on the MS-DPC? That adds some perspective on the deployment needs. On Jan 24, 2013, at 7:08 PM, james jones wrote: > Are you looking to do active-standby or active-active mc-lag? > > On Mon, Jan 21, 2013 at 3:48 PM, Andre Christian < > andre.christ...@o3bnetworks.com> wrote: > >> Marcus - I am building about 10 PoPs and opted for the dual mx-80 design. >> Also looked at making the PoPs all layer 2 with a pair of exs. >> >> Plan to use MC-LAG where applicable. >> >> On Jan 21, 2013, at 3:43 PM, "Markus H" <hauschild.mar...@gmail.com> >> wrote: >> >>> Hi, >>> >>> I wonder what kind of redundancy the community would prefer for >>> small-medium sized PoPs. >>> This is what I have come up with so far: >>> >>> a) 2xMX80 >>> Pro: Two seperate devices so less prone to config errors and chassis >> failure >>> Con: Using redundant uplinks is more complicated (LB would need to be >>> done via routing protocol) >>> >>> b) 1xMX240/480 with redundant SCB and RE >>> Pro: Easier to use redundant uplinks (LACP) >>> Con: Config error as well as chassis failure brings the whole PoP down >>> >>> Any further arguments? Best practices? What did you deploy? >>> >>> >>> Best regards, >>> Markus >>> _______________________________________________ >>> juniper-nsp mailing list juniper-nsp@puck.nether.net >>> https://puck.nether.net/mailman/listinfo/juniper-nsp >> >> _______________________________________________ >> juniper-nsp mailing list juniper-nsp@puck.nether.net >> https://puck.nether.net/mailman/listinfo/juniper-nsp >> > _______________________________________________ > juniper-nsp mailing list juniper-nsp@puck.nether.net > https://puck.nether.net/mailman/listinfo/juniper-nsp _______________________________________________ juniper-nsp mailing list juniper-nsp@puck.nether.net https://puck.nether.net/mailman/listinfo/juniper-nsp