Re: [j-nsp] MPLS in the Access
There are vendors who are shipping boxes today with 24x1GE and 2x10GE uplink, wire-rate, which can do VPLS and P2P Ethernet/CES, but no L3VPN. However, you can connect into a L3VPN virtual routed interface via a P2P pseudowire. The boxes are cheaper than EX4200s... Sounds interesting , care to name vendor/model? Phil P On Sat, Jul 24, 2010 at 12:21 PM, Phil Bedard phil...@gmail.com wrote: PBB seems to be a cool modern acronym with a lot of buzz around, if someone has any more or less real experience with it, hey, how about to share your thoughts? :) Another approach can be a large VC ring of EX4200s built with VCE (ethernet) links: http://www.juniper.net/us/en/local/pdf/implementation-guides/8010045-en.pdf Seems to be a reasonable solution when scale of up to 9 nodes in a single ring is OK. First EX4200 is known to be more or less stable (in my experience), second VCCP is actualy ISIS which is way more interesting than most ethernet scaling technologies rooted in LAN. As of my experience, Juniper's VC implementation is rather not bad. Moreover they even announced EX4500 to support virtual chassis some day, but this is too dreamy by now, and no one knows how good EX4500 will be. Actually I know some vendor producing small devices, which can do VPLS, Martini and L3VPN in 1-unit form factor with wire speed performance of 24GE with 10GE up-links for price at the level of 2xEX4200-24F. Even the vendor's reputation is not that bad. But since I have absolutely no experience with them yet and everything is too fuzzy, I'd prefer to follow the Mark's way and ask if someone can say something less abstract :) We have over 1000 nodes deployed today in various metros using MPLS in the access and should have close to 2000 by the end of this year. Our largest metro is about 500 nodes today. We are only doing CES and Ethernet services right now but may expand to L3VPN relatively soon. There are vendors who are shipping boxes today with 24x1GE and 2x10GE uplink, wire-rate, which can do VPLS and P2P Ethernet/CES, but no L3VPN. However, you can connect into a L3VPN virtual routed interface via a P2P pseudowire. The boxes are cheaper than EX4200s... In our network the access rings only contain P2P services and all multipoint services be it VPLS or L3VPN are hosted on larger agg nodes. One limitation of these boxes is they can only push 2 labels so they only support 1:1 FRR and not facility backup. They will have another box out by the end of the year with more advanced capability. Phil ___ 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
[j-nsp] MX-80 rumors and heresay - any comments?
Hi All, Given the size/shape/ports of the soon-to-be-delivered MX-80, it's fairly obvious that it's targeted at the 7206-G2/ASR1004/SmartEdge-400 size of the market. Has anyone heard any rumors (or otherwise) of there being L2TP LAC/LNS/Tunnel-Switching functionality available on this platform (ie in real JunOS). Should such a beast finally take shape it would certainly be a swift kick where it hurts most for Cisco, Redback and friends. Thanks, Phil P ___ juniper-nsp mailing list juniper-nsp@puck.nether.net https://puck.nether.net/mailman/listinfo/juniper-nsp
Re: [j-nsp] Finally...
The sad thing is that despite the *many and various* content-delivery networks around, these vendors do not see it (decent speed downloads for software updates) as a priority for their business. A ten second search in your-favorite-source-of-knowledge yields *lots* of we do this already, for software vendors, including authentication and security. It is literally a no-brainer, there is absolutely no excuse for poor download performance of software/firmware updates from hardwawe vendors. Phil P On Sun, Feb 21, 2010 at 9:21 AM, Kevin Loch kl...@kl.net wrote: Richard A Steenbergen wrote: On Sat, Feb 20, 2010 at 06:46:01PM +0100, Malte von dem Hagen wrote: You're right, that suck0rz big time. In 2010, one isn't used to having to wait for a download the time it takes to get a cup of coffee AND to empty it (this even works for the litre-buckets some of my colleagues use as mugs). I always wonder why of all companies network manufacturers have such bad internet connectivity (C and B aren't much better than J...). Maybe they need a good hosting ISP? I'd be glad to help ;-) Oh trust me vendor B/F is so much worse. Not only to they host their download server off a DSL line, but they limit the simultanious connections to 1 per IP. You can't even go browsing for other software or download the release notes while you wait for your first download to finish. And at least Juniper hasn't pulled a Cisco-style move and required javascript to download files. There is no excuse for that in 2010 (or even 2000). If they don't have the capacity or expertise to host sufficient download capacity in house then they should contract that out to someone who does. I wonder if they would require the download servers to be behind some other vendor's routers/switches so they can serve the cricital update that has their hardware falling over :) -Kevin ___ 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
