Re: [j-nsp] Mounting a QFX5100 or ACX5048 on 2 Post Rack
For my EX4600s i used: https://www.racksolutions.com/2post-center-mount-brackets.html Which I found to be very sturdy and good for multiple RUs of equipment. On Thu, Aug 2, 2018 at 11:05 AM Colton Conor wrote: > Brian, are you talking about this kit: > https://www.racksolutions.com/2-post-rack-rails.html > > > > On Thu, Aug 2, 2018 at 11:25 AM, Nelson, Brian > wrote: > > > Yes, I have these kits in production, without the back cable mgmt rail. > > Work just fine. They are beefier than the pictures depict. > > > > Brian Nelson > > > > On 08/02/2018 10:08 AM, Colton Conor wrote: > > > Tim, > > > > > > Have you used this 2 post rack rails with the QFX5100? It looks like > this > > > rail kit has a back plate, does the power cables fit through those > holes? > > > This QFX5100 is long. > > > > > > > > > > > > On Wed, Aug 1, 2018 at 5:48 PM, Tim Jackson > > wrote: > > > > > >> https://www.racksolutions.com/2-post-rack-rails.html > > >> > > >> -- > > >> Tim > > >> > > >> On Wed, Aug 1, 2018 at 5:39 PM, Colton Conor > > >> wrote: > > >> > > >>> We are constantly having to mount these larger switches to two post > > racks. > > >>> To my knowledge Juniper does not make 2 post mounting brackets for > > these > > >>> switches. Does anyone have any recommendations on a shelf or > something > > to > > >>> hold these up? We are dealing with 19 and 23 inch racks. > > >>> ___ > > >>> 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 > > > > > > > > > -- > > Supervisor > > Computing Systems Support > > Dept of Computer Science > > > > ___ > > 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] EX4550 or QFX5100 for Core
Have you considered EX4600? It is like a QFX5100 but with less feature support. I have 2x in an MC-LAG which has been great, but it supports Virtual Chassis too. On Fri, Aug 3, 2018 at 7:44 AM Giovanni Bellac via juniper-nsp < juniper-nsp@puck.nether.net> wrote: > Hi all, > > we have migrated our core (8-10x Racks, BGP default route, LACP to the > ToR, VLAN, L3, nothing fancy) to a VC of 2x 4200-24T with 12.3R12-S9. > 12.3R12-Sx is a recommend version for EX4200. We have had a kernel panic > (no JTAC) and I am not confident with this old setup anymore. > > Our older stack of 2x 4200-24T with 12.3R6.6 has done its job for years > without any problems. > > (PS: We have first migrated to 15.1R7-S1 on the new VC - it was terribly > buggy - Guys, 15.1 is a JTAC recommend version... I have the feeling and of > course reading the mailinglists that Juniper has no inhouse testing anymore > ? Note to me: RTFM(ailinglist) first.) > > So, we want something new with JTAC support. We need (1/10G)-Base-T, VLAN, > L3, nothing fancy, but stable. We have 3k ARP entries. > > Option 1) 2x EX4550 > > Option 2) 2x QFX5100 > > We want to keep simplicity in and therefore want to use VC. We are pushing > some Gbit/s from Rack-to-Rack (backups) and to our two upstreams around > 500-600Mbit/s. > QFX5100 hardware seems to be MUCH better than EX4550 hardware. The ARP > table size, hash table size etc. on EX4550 is relatively small. > I have read (mailinglists, reddit) that VC is not a good idea on QFX5100 > (bugs, bugs, bugs). > > Can somebody with these devices in the network can give me some up to date > insights? > > Thanks in advance! > > Kind regards, > Giovanni > ___ > 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] QFX5110 / VXLAN
Be aware on the QFX5110 that L3 VXLAN is limited, You cannot route vxlan to vlan: https://prsearch.juniper.net/InfoCenter/index?page=prcontent=PR1318178 On Wed, Jul 4, 2018 at 3:51 PM Brant Ian Stevens < bra...@argentiumsolutions.com> wrote: > And now there's the announcement of the QFX5120 and EX4650 to the mix. > Those are Trident-3 based, if I am not mistaken. Boxes look great on > paper... > > -- > Regards, > -- > Brant I. Stevens, Principal & Consulting Architect > bra...@argentiumsolutions.com > d:212.931.8566, x101 <(212)%20931-8566>. m:917.673.6536 <(917)%20673-6536>. > f:917.525.4759 <(917)%20525-4759>. > http://argentiumsolutions.com > > On 7/4/18 5:03 PM, Scott Harvanek wrote: > > Cost is a factor I don’t think I can get anyone to bite on something > bigger either as the application is solely VXLAN in a compact form factor. > > > > -Scott H > > > >> On Jul 4, 2018, at 2:20 PM, Pavel Lunin wrote: > >> > >> Btw, it's a very good question if anyone here has more or less close to > real-world experience with L3 gw and evpn type 5 routes on QFX5110 or maybe > any other trident 2+ based box. > >> > >> Would much appreciate your input. > >> > >> Regards, > >> Pavel > >> > >> July 3, 2018, 18:48 Roger Wiklund : > >>> Hi Scott > >>> > >>> Should be fine as L2 GW. L3 GW and Route Type 5 support is quite > recent. > >>> > >>> Beefier alternatives are QFX10002, or MX204 if you want to go MX route > with > >>> fewer ports. Both have custom ASICs with higher scale, and higher > chance to > >>> overcome caveats/limitations especially tied to chipset limitation. > >>> > >>> Regards > >>> Roger > >>> > >>> On Tue, Jul 3, 2018 at 1:48 PM, Scott Harvanek < > scott.harva...@login.com> > >>> wrote: > >>> > Is anyone on here running 5110s for VXLAN/VTEP/EVPN and run into any > issues? I’ve gone over the caveats list Juniper has for these in > regards > to what they won’t do in regards to VXLAN and it seems like they meet > our > needs… just curious if anyone has run into any lesser documented > issues > with them. > > I’m looking at the list here; https://www.juniper.net/ > > documentation/en_US/junos/topics/concept/vxlan-constraints-qfx-series.html > < > https://www.juniper.net/documentation/en_US/junos/topics/concept/vxlan- > constraints-qfx-series.html> > > Is there a better device for VXLAN on the juniper side? We’re looking > for > something comparable to the Nexus 9372 on the Cisco side. > > Cheers! > > Scott H > > > > ___ > 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 > ___ juniper-nsp mailing list juniper-nsp@puck.nether.net https://puck.nether.net/mailman/listinfo/juniper-nsp
Re: [j-nsp] EX4550 or QFX5100 for Core
I would highly recommend going with QFX5110 instead of QFX5100 – same everything but QFX5110 offers L3 VXLAN which QFX5100 does not. I know you do not need this today, but down the road who knows. EVPN/VXLAN appears to be the new architecture for most networks, plus QFX5110 has QSFP28 interfaces to support 40 and 100, while QFX5100 has only QSFP+ to support 40GE. For both products, the 40GE can be channelized into 4 x 10GE. I would NOT go with EX4550. Yes, do NOT run 15.1 (Rx-Sy) on any legacy EX product. Just stay with 12.3 and you’ll very likely be much happier. One other reason, I believe, is that price of QFX5110 is less than both QFX5100/EX4550. You’ll want to run 15.1X53-D[latest] on your QFX5110, unless you are using EVPN/VXLAN, and then 17.3R3, I think is best, or maybe some 18.x. I would not consider 16.x or 17.x for any EX or QFX usage, outside of EX92xx. Not sure who your Juniper partner or sales team are, but I would think they should/would tell you the same thing. Good luck On 8/6/18, 7:54 AM, "Mark Tinka" wrote: On 3/Aug/18 16:39, Giovanni Bellac via juniper-nsp wrote: > > We want to keep simplicity in and therefore want to use VC. We are pushing some Gbit/s from Rack-to-Rack (backups) and to our two upstreams around 500-600Mbit/s. > QFX5100 hardware seems to be MUCH better than EX4550 hardware. The ARP table size, hash table size etc. on EX4550 is relatively small. Watch out for small buffers (4MB shared) on the EX4550. Mark. ___ juniper-nsp mailing list juniper-nsp@puck.nether.net https://puck.nether.net/mailman/listinfo/juniper-nsp
Re: [j-nsp] Recommended MX80 JUNOS version?
On Mon, 6 Aug 2018 10:30:16 + Chris Adams wrote: > I've got an old MX80 running the JTAC recommended release 15.1R7, but > that has a USB bug (PR 108) that is causing crashes. The PR says it > is fixed in 16.1R4 and 17.1R1, but I was wondering what releases other > people might be running and recommend on the MX80 these days. I've seen good experience with 14.1R7.4 on a boxes that have a mix of 1/10 Gb/s interfaces, NetFlow/IPFIX export, OSPF, BGP, PIM, ... I've heard others running the 17.1 rev are happy. John ___ juniper-nsp mailing list juniper-nsp@puck.nether.net https://puck.nether.net/mailman/listinfo/juniper-nsp
Re: [j-nsp] EX4550 or QFX5100 for Core
On 3/Aug/18 16:39, Giovanni Bellac via juniper-nsp wrote: > > We want to keep simplicity in and therefore want to use VC. We are pushing > some Gbit/s from Rack-to-Rack (backups) and to our two upstreams around > 500-600Mbit/s. > QFX5100 hardware seems to be MUCH better than EX4550 hardware. The ARP table > size, hash table size etc. on EX4550 is relatively small. Watch out for small buffers (4MB shared) on the EX4550. Mark. ___ juniper-nsp mailing list juniper-nsp@puck.nether.net https://puck.nether.net/mailman/listinfo/juniper-nsp
[j-nsp] Recommended MX80 JUNOS version?
I've got an old MX80 running the JTAC recommended release 15.1R7, but that has a USB bug (PR 108) that is causing crashes. The PR says it is fixed in 16.1R4 and 17.1R1, but I was wondering what releases other people might be running and recommend on the MX80 these days. -- Chris Adams ___ juniper-nsp mailing list juniper-nsp@puck.nether.net https://puck.nether.net/mailman/listinfo/juniper-nsp
