Hi Alex, Just to add a little extra to what Charles has already said; The EX4600 has been around for quite some time, whereas the QFX5110 is a much newer product, so the suggestion for the QFX over EX could have been down to this.
Have a look at the datasheets for any additional benefits that may suit one over the over, table sizes / port counts / protocol support etc etc. If in doubt between the two, quote out the solution for each variant and see how they best fit in terms of features and CAPEX/OPEX for your needs. Just to echo Charles, remember that a VC / VCF is one logical switch from a control plane perspective, so if you have two ToR per-rack, ensure that the two are not part of the same VC or VCF. Then you can afford to lose a ToR / series of ToRs for maintenance without breaking a sweat. HTH, Graham Graham Brown Twitter - @mountainrescuer <https://twitter.com/#!/mountainrescuer> LinkedIn <http://www.linkedin.com/in/grahamcbrown> On Wed, 13 Mar 2019 at 08:00, Anderson, Charles R <c...@wpi.edu> wrote: > Spanning Tree is rather frowned upon for new designs (for good reasons). > Usually, if you have the ability to do stright L2 bridging, you can always > do L3 on top of that. A routed Spine/Leaf design with EVPN-VXLAN overly > for L2 extension might be a good candidate and is typically the answer > given these days. > > I'm not a fan of proprietary fabric designs like VCF or MC-LAG. VC is > okay, but I wouldn't use it across your entire set of racks because you are > creating a single management/control plane as a single point of failure > with shared fate for the entire 6 racks. If you must avoid L3 for some > reason, I would create a L2 distribution layer VC out of a couple QFX5110s > and dual-home independent Top Of Rack switches to that VC so each rack > switch is separate. I've used 2-member VCs with QFX5100 without issue. > Just be sure to enable "no-split-detection" if and only if you have exactly > 2 members. Then interconnect the distribution VCs at each site with > regular LAGs. > > On Tue, Mar 12, 2019 at 06:36:49PM +0000, Alex Martino via juniper-nsp > wrote: > > Hi, > > > > I am seeking advices. > > > > I am working on a L2/L3 DC setup. I have six racks spread across two > locations. I need about 20 ports of 10 Gbps (*2 for redundancy) ports per > rack and a low bandwidth between the two locations c.a. 1 Gbps. Nothing > special here. > > > > At first sight, the EX4600 seems like a perfect fit with Virtual Chassis > feature in each rack to avoid spanning tree across all racks. Essentially, > I would imagine one VC cluster of 6 switches per location and running > spanning-tree for the two remote locations, where L3 is not possible. > > > > I have been told to check the QFX5110 without much context, other than > not do VC but only VCF with QFXs. As such and after doing my searches, my > findings would suggest that the EX4600 is a good candidate for VC but does > not support VCF, where the QFX5110 would be a good candidate for VCF but > not for VC (although the feature seems to be supported). And I have been > told to either use VC or VCF rather than MC-LAG. > > > > Any suggestions? > > > > Thanks, > > Alex > _______________________________________________ > 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
