Re: [j-nsp] high 10GE port density in EX switch?
Only thing with the EX4550's is that they're only supported by latest (read: bleeding edge) code. Nonetheless, I'm adding them in multiple VC's in two locations where we had only EX4500's. Not the perfect switch, but the VC tech has been sound for years with EX. If you're really curious, ask me in two weeks how those implementations go (one is two VC's of 3 ex4550's, and another is two vc's of 1 ex4550 with 6 ex4200's. Paul Zugnoni On 2/2/13 3:40 PM, "JP Velders" wrote: > >> Date: Sat, 2 Feb 2013 14:51:02 -0800 >> From: Brent Jones >> Subject: Re: [j-nsp] high 10GE port density in EX switch? > >> There is always the EX4550, 32 10Gb ports in 1U, with a module to add >> 8 more I believe > >Two module slots in fact. With 10GE and VC modules released. The 40GE >module should debute somewhere this year (so they keep telling me). > >If you're going the _physical_ VC route with VCP ports it would give >you 2.5:1 oversubscription (32 x 10Gbps vs 4 x 32Gbps). Going VCPe you >can do a bit better with 2:1 oversubscription. If doing that look into >the traffic patterns to figure out how far you can stretch the Virtual >Chassis (max 10 members) before creating contention. > >I haven't seen official specs for the EX9200 yet, but supposedly that >should fill the gap between EX8200 and MX I'm told. Apart from Qfabric >itself, the QFX3600 with MC-LAG might also be a nice consolidation >layer with its 16 QSFP+ ports between an MX and a bunch of VC'd >EX4550's. Don't know if the routing on there (with VRRP and filtering) >is beefy enough for the needs. > >In the end it boils down to not just the port-count, but the traffic >and usage patterns. Unfortunately those aren't always that clear up >front (or even in hindsight ;D). > >Kind regards, >JP Velders >___ >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
Re: [j-nsp] Junos 12.3 Release Date
12.3, right on time. On Feb 2, 2013, at 1:40 PM, Paul Goyette wrote: > 12.3 has now been released. > > Yes, there was a posting delay due to PSN-2013-01-823, but > posting is now complete. > > >> -Original Message- >> From: juniper-nsp-boun...@puck.nether.net [mailto:juniper-nsp- >> boun...@puck.nether.net] On Behalf Of JP Velders >> Sent: Saturday, February 02, 2013 12:54 PM >> To: juniper-nsp@puck.nether.net >> Subject: Re: [j-nsp] Junos 12.3 Release Date >> >> >>> Date: Tue, 22 Jan 2013 18:07:53 +0100 >>> From: Andrei-Marius Radu >>> Subject: Re: [j-nsp] Junos 12.3 Release Date >> >>> As far as I am aware 12.3 will be released at the beginning of 2013 >>> and indeed it will be an EEOL release. >> >> The release notes and documentation have been put on-line already, >> probably due to the planned release date of Jan 31st 2013. I guess >> they might've delayed release due to PSN-2013-01-823, but that's >> speculation. >> >> For everyone who wants to know what's new or broken: >> http://www.juniper.net/techpubs/en_US/junos12.3/information- >> products/topic-collections/release-notes/12.3/index.html >> >> Kind regards, >> JP Velders >> ___ >> 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
Re: [j-nsp] high 10GE port density in EX switch?
> Date: Sat, 2 Feb 2013 14:51:02 -0800 > From: Brent Jones > Subject: Re: [j-nsp] high 10GE port density in EX switch? > There is always the EX4550, 32 10Gb ports in 1U, with a module to add > 8 more I believe Two module slots in fact. With 10GE and VC modules released. The 40GE module should debute somewhere this year (so they keep telling me). If you're going the _physical_ VC route with VCP ports it would give you 2.5:1 oversubscription (32 x 10Gbps vs 4 x 32Gbps). Going VCPe you can do a bit better with 2:1 oversubscription. If doing that look into the traffic patterns to figure out how far you can stretch the Virtual Chassis (max 10 members) before creating contention. I haven't seen official specs for the EX9200 yet, but supposedly that should fill the gap between EX8200 and MX I'm told. Apart from Qfabric itself, the QFX3600 with MC-LAG might also be a nice consolidation layer with its 16 QSFP+ ports between an MX and a bunch of VC'd EX4550's. Don't know if the routing on there (with VRRP and filtering) is beefy enough for the needs. In the end it boils down to not just the port-count, but the traffic and usage patterns. Unfortunately those aren't always that clear up front (or even in hindsight ;D). Kind regards, JP Velders ___ juniper-nsp mailing list juniper-nsp@puck.nether.net https://puck.nether.net/mailman/listinfo/juniper-nsp
Re: [j-nsp] high 10GE port density in EX switch?
There is always the EX4550, 32 10Gb ports in 1U, with a module to add 8 more I believe On Sat, Feb 2, 2013 at 1:43 PM, Eugeniu Patrascu wrote: > On Sun, Dec 16, 2012 at 4:13 AM, Michel de Nostredame > wrote: >> Hi There~ >> >> One of my customers has some Cisco Nexus 7K but budget wise prevents >> him from buying N7K in new locations. His environment is pretty simple >> and straight forward. Lots of 10GE ports (around 2200 ports) divide >> into around 30+ VLANs. Then uplink to two MX routers (the border) and >> go to Internet. >> >> Previous setups were using N5K as L2 access switch and aggregate to >> N7K as core L3 switch, then multiple 10GE L3 uplinks to MX480. The N7K >> is doing VLAN routing and lots (total 3+ thousand lines) of ACL. >> >> The QFX total solution looks pretty interesting, but does not have too >> significant price difference compares to Nexus solution. >> >> Will Juniper ship new switch fabric on EX 8000 series to support >> line-rate high port density 10GE? (for example, 40 port line rate 10GE >> per slot.) >> > > If you do not really need line rate 40 x 10Gbps ports you can go with > EX8200-40XS and fill a 8216 with them. It's oversubscribed 5:1 in 5x8 > port groups. > Another option for a lot of 10G ports would be a stack of EX4500 > switches, but you would still be limited by the Virtual Chassis > available bandwidth (128Gbps Half-Duplex) - but if you can get some > flexibility as you can try to mix and match servers that talk to each > other on the same switch in order to have line rate 10G traffic and > avoid VC traffic. You can use the up-link modules to populate them > with 10G ports and do a MC-LAG to the MXs. > > Even with the QFabric, you would still need to run a lot of 40G > interconnect ports in order to have a high throughput fabric > backplane. > > Other vendor that might do (you should check with them) full line rate > 40+ 10GbE ports is Brocade with the new VDX 8770-8 switch (they claim > 4Tbps/slot and 384 ports per 15U chassis). > > HTH. > ___ > juniper-nsp mailing list juniper-nsp@puck.nether.net > https://puck.nether.net/mailman/listinfo/juniper-nsp -- Brent Jones br...@brentrjones.com ___ juniper-nsp mailing list juniper-nsp@puck.nether.net https://puck.nether.net/mailman/listinfo/juniper-nsp
Re: [j-nsp] high 10GE port density in EX switch?
On Sun, Dec 16, 2012 at 4:13 AM, Michel de Nostredame wrote: > Hi There~ > > One of my customers has some Cisco Nexus 7K but budget wise prevents > him from buying N7K in new locations. His environment is pretty simple > and straight forward. Lots of 10GE ports (around 2200 ports) divide > into around 30+ VLANs. Then uplink to two MX routers (the border) and > go to Internet. > > Previous setups were using N5K as L2 access switch and aggregate to > N7K as core L3 switch, then multiple 10GE L3 uplinks to MX480. The N7K > is doing VLAN routing and lots (total 3+ thousand lines) of ACL. > > The QFX total solution looks pretty interesting, but does not have too > significant price difference compares to Nexus solution. > > Will Juniper ship new switch fabric on EX 8000 series to support > line-rate high port density 10GE? (for example, 40 port line rate 10GE > per slot.) > If you do not really need line rate 40 x 10Gbps ports you can go with EX8200-40XS and fill a 8216 with them. It's oversubscribed 5:1 in 5x8 port groups. Another option for a lot of 10G ports would be a stack of EX4500 switches, but you would still be limited by the Virtual Chassis available bandwidth (128Gbps Half-Duplex) - but if you can get some flexibility as you can try to mix and match servers that talk to each other on the same switch in order to have line rate 10G traffic and avoid VC traffic. You can use the up-link modules to populate them with 10G ports and do a MC-LAG to the MXs. Even with the QFabric, you would still need to run a lot of 40G interconnect ports in order to have a high throughput fabric backplane. Other vendor that might do (you should check with them) full line rate 40+ 10GbE ports is Brocade with the new VDX 8770-8 switch (they claim 4Tbps/slot and 384 ports per 15U chassis). HTH. ___ juniper-nsp mailing list juniper-nsp@puck.nether.net https://puck.nether.net/mailman/listinfo/juniper-nsp
Re: [j-nsp] Junos 12.3 Release Date
12.3 has now been released. Yes, there was a posting delay due to PSN-2013-01-823, but posting is now complete. > -Original Message- > From: juniper-nsp-boun...@puck.nether.net [mailto:juniper-nsp- > boun...@puck.nether.net] On Behalf Of JP Velders > Sent: Saturday, February 02, 2013 12:54 PM > To: juniper-nsp@puck.nether.net > Subject: Re: [j-nsp] Junos 12.3 Release Date > > > > Date: Tue, 22 Jan 2013 18:07:53 +0100 > > From: Andrei-Marius Radu > > Subject: Re: [j-nsp] Junos 12.3 Release Date > > > As far as I am aware 12.3 will be released at the beginning of 2013 > > and indeed it will be an EEOL release. > > The release notes and documentation have been put on-line already, > probably due to the planned release date of Jan 31st 2013. I guess > they might've delayed release due to PSN-2013-01-823, but that's > speculation. > > For everyone who wants to know what's new or broken: > http://www.juniper.net/techpubs/en_US/junos12.3/information- > products/topic-collections/release-notes/12.3/index.html > > Kind regards, > JP Velders > ___ > 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
Re: [j-nsp] Junos 12.3 Release Date
> Date: Tue, 22 Jan 2013 18:07:53 +0100 > From: Andrei-Marius Radu > Subject: Re: [j-nsp] Junos 12.3 Release Date > As far as I am aware 12.3 will be released at the beginning of 2013 > and indeed it will be an EEOL release. The release notes and documentation have been put on-line already, probably due to the planned release date of Jan 31st 2013. I guess they might've delayed release due to PSN-2013-01-823, but that's speculation. For everyone who wants to know what's new or broken: http://www.juniper.net/techpubs/en_US/junos12.3/information-products/topic-collections/release-notes/12.3/index.html Kind regards, JP Velders ___ juniper-nsp mailing list juniper-nsp@puck.nether.net https://puck.nether.net/mailman/listinfo/juniper-nsp
Re: [j-nsp] Quick way to delete multiple licenses on SRX
Well thats a great bit of code there. Works a treat
Thanks bud :)
On 2 February 2013 15:45, Gojko Vujovic wrote:
> On 30-Jan-13 16:34, Mark Menzies wrote:
>
>> Is there any way other than the very slow "request system license delete
>> " command, to get rid of multiple licenses all at once?
>>
>
>
> start shell user root
> cli show system license | grep ident | awk '{print $3}' | xargs -n 1 cli
> request system license delete
>
>
> __**_
> 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
Re: [j-nsp] Quick way to delete multiple licenses on SRX
On 30-Jan-13 16:34, Mark Menzies wrote:
Is there any way other than the very slow "request system license delete
" command, to get rid of multiple licenses all at once?
start shell user root
cli show system license | grep ident | awk '{print $3}' | xargs -n 1 cli
request system license delete
___
juniper-nsp mailing list juniper-nsp@puck.nether.net
https://puck.nether.net/mailman/listinfo/juniper-nsp
Re: [j-nsp] Smallest size IPv6 allocation typically advertised?
On Wed, Jan 23, 2013 at 3:19 AM, Morgan McLean wrote: > Hi, > > Just curious what the smallest v6 advertisement providers will accept is > these days? I've seen no smaller than /48 mentioned on various boards, but > I see arin will allocate all the way down to /32. We currently have a /48, > and I advertise the whole thing but I'm considering splitting it up among > multiple sites. > > I haven't contacted my providers yet, I'm just curious. The "rule" is to get a /48 per site and advertise it from each site. Some providers filter announcements smaller than a /48. Eugeniu ___ juniper-nsp mailing list juniper-nsp@puck.nether.net https://puck.nether.net/mailman/listinfo/juniper-nsp
Re: [j-nsp] JUNOS-secondary Path
Hello, Can we see the configuration done for MPLS LSPs and which Junos Version you are running on ? Thx.. On Sat, Feb 2, 2013 at 5:27 PM, Ahmed Taha wrote: > > Dear Obrien, I couldn't get your words " config or it didn't happen" > > > > > > > > > > > > > > From: obri...@missouri.edu > > To: ahmedta...@hotmail.com > > CC: juniper-nsp@puck.nether.net > > Subject: Re: [j-nsp] JUNOS-secondary Path > > Date: Sat, 2 Feb 2013 00:47:51 + > > > > Config or it didn't happen > > > > Will O'Brien > > > > On Feb 1, 2013, at 5:06 PM, "Ahmed Taha" wrote: > > > > > > > > Hi all,I have a query , as I'm trying to establish LSP secondary > tunnel , but that secondary one becomes up for seconds , and then became > down.Here is the Output when using , show mpls lsp extensive: > > > Secondary two State: Dn > > >Priorities: 7 0 > > >SmartOptimizeTimer: 180 > > >No computed ERO. > > > 119 Feb 1 02:28:03.405 Clear Call > > > 118 Feb 1 02:28:01.818 Record Route: 192.168.14.2 172.16.16.2 > 172.17.17.2 192.168.17.2 192.168.18.2 > > > 117 Feb 1 02:28:01.818 Up > > > Last message I get is " Clear call" , I tried to check traceoptions > for that , I could see these wordsno constraints to check > > > Feb 1 02:28:01.786712 Link overlap with primary path, adding cost > 800and Long O/P , so could anyone advise me. > > > ___ > > > 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
Re: [j-nsp] JUNOS-secondary Path
Dear Obrien, I couldn't get your words " config or it didn't happen" > From: obri...@missouri.edu > To: ahmedta...@hotmail.com > CC: juniper-nsp@puck.nether.net > Subject: Re: [j-nsp] JUNOS-secondary Path > Date: Sat, 2 Feb 2013 00:47:51 + > > Config or it didn't happen > > Will O'Brien > > On Feb 1, 2013, at 5:06 PM, "Ahmed Taha" wrote: > > > > > Hi all,I have a query , as I'm trying to establish LSP secondary tunnel , > > but that secondary one becomes up for seconds , and then became down.Here > > is the Output when using , show mpls lsp extensive: > > Secondary two State: Dn > >Priorities: 7 0 > >SmartOptimizeTimer: 180 > >No computed ERO. > > 119 Feb 1 02:28:03.405 Clear Call > > 118 Feb 1 02:28:01.818 Record Route: 192.168.14.2 172.16.16.2 > > 172.17.17.2 192.168.17.2 192.168.18.2 > > 117 Feb 1 02:28:01.818 Up > > Last message I get is " Clear call" , I tried to check traceoptions for > > that , I could see these wordsno constraints to check > > Feb 1 02:28:01.786712 Link overlap with primary path, adding cost > > 800and Long O/P , so could anyone advise me. > > ___ > > 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
