Re: [j-nsp] VCCP

[Scott Harvanek]

We’ve been running VC on the MX platform for years without issue.  

Scott H
Login, LLC



> On Nov 16, 2017, at 8:51 AM, Chuck Anderson  wrote:
> 
> Virtual Chassis shares the management, control, and data planes across the 
> two routers.  I don't like that from a high-availability standpoint.  The two 
> routers are tightly coupled with software versions, bootup, etc.
> 
> MC-LAG shares some of the control and data planes via ICCP but maintains 
> separate routing & management planes so it is better in that respect.
> 
> But IMO the best architecture is a L3 routed one.  If you need L2 services to 
> extend across the L3 then use MPLS services such as EVPN.
> 
> On Thu, Nov 16, 2017 at 08:57:42AM -0500, harbor235 wrote:
>> Has anyone deployed VCCP on the MX platform as a solution for a pair of
>> edge routers that traditionally would support a BGP multihomed architecture?
>> 
>> I am interested if VCCP is a viable solution to replace the traditional
>> dual homed architecture and if there are any pros and cons. Are there
>> limitations with VCCP? Operational issues? EGP and/or IGP limitations,
>> etc
> ___
> 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] Enhanced MX480 Midplane?

[Tobias Heister]

Hi,

Am 16.11.2017 um 10:36 schrieb Sebastian Becker:

this is the information out of the "Juniper Tech Club" in Cologne in June 2016. 
So not only provided to us.
If needed I can verify that with Juniper.


Feel free to do that. My informationen and recent verification from Juniper 
confirm my assumption (hence no speed difference between midplanes for MPC7 and 
only 480G in 3+0)

--
Kind Regards
Tobias Heister
___
juniper-nsp mailing list juniper-nsp@puck.nether.net
https://puck.nether.net/mailman/listinfo/juniper-nsp

Re: [j-nsp] VCCP

[Chuck Anderson]

Virtual Chassis shares the management, control, and data planes across the two 
routers.  I don't like that from a high-availability standpoint.  The two 
routers are tightly coupled with software versions, bootup, etc.

MC-LAG shares some of the control and data planes via ICCP but maintains 
separate routing & management planes so it is better in that respect.

But IMO the best architecture is a L3 routed one.  If you need L2 services to 
extend across the L3 then use MPLS services such as EVPN.

On Thu, Nov 16, 2017 at 08:57:42AM -0500, harbor235 wrote:
> Has anyone deployed VCCP on the MX platform as a solution for a pair of
> edge routers that traditionally would support a BGP multihomed architecture?
> 
> I am interested if VCCP is a viable solution to replace the traditional
> dual homed architecture and if there are any pros and cons. Are there
> limitations with VCCP? Operational issues? EGP and/or IGP limitations,
> etc
___
juniper-nsp mailing list juniper-nsp@puck.nether.net
https://puck.nether.net/mailman/listinfo/juniper-nsp

Re: [j-nsp] Enhanced MX480 Midplane?

[Sebastian Becker]

Hi Tobias,

this is the information out of the "Juniper Tech Club" in Cologne in June 2016. 
So not only provided to us.
If needed I can verify that with Juniper.

— 
Sebastian Becker

> Am 15.11.2017 um 16:07 schrieb Tobias Heister :
> 
> 
> Hi,
> 
> Am 15.11.2017 um 09:13 schrieb Sebastian Becker:
>> that’s not right. You need to differ between redundancy and 
>> non-redundancy-mode:
>> With Fabric Redundancy in MX960 (SCBEs: 2 active, 1 spare):
>> Premium2 Chassis (non-enhanced midplane):
>> MPC5E205G
>> MPC7E400G
>> Premium3 Chassis (enhanced midplane):
>> MPC5E240G
>> MPC7E480G
>> In the non-redundant mode (so all three SCBEs are online and active) you 
>> will not suffer from any limitation as long as all three are online. But if 
>> one dies you will have the limitations in a Premium2 chassis. So it depends 
>> on the model you want to use. We need a full redundant switching fabric so 
>> we have to calculate with these limitations.
> 
> At least according to my information there is no difference in enhanced/non 
> enhanced for MPC7 on SCBE2 in any MX.
> There is no way to get full 480G with 2+1 with SCBE2. You can get 480 in 3+0 
> mode. (both on MX960)
> 
> The first SCB* with 2+1 and Linerate for MPC7 will be SCBE3.
> 
> But hey, your version would make more sense but all my documents and 
> information since the release of MPC7 say otherwise.
> On the other hand there are not many customers in DE who would/should know 
> better :)
> 
> -- 
> Kind Regards
> Tobias Heister

___
juniper-nsp mailing list juniper-nsp@puck.nether.net
https://puck.nether.net/mailman/listinfo/juniper-nsp