Re: [j-nsp] Advice on a 100Gbps+ environment
Arista is still the best deal around when it comes to very high speed, high density ethernet. In some deployments, it's the only possible choice. Juniper doesn't have a great product offering at ToR and even access layer/core routing when you start talking 40 gig ports. On Tue, Jul 2, 2013 at 11:00 AM, Morgan McLean wrx...@gmail.com wrote: Wow, this thread snowballed into quite the MX80 debate. For the record, I run two in production where I am employed full time and they perform beautifully, though woefully underutilized. Using static routes and /32's as peering endpoints is a great option I skimmed over, I'll see if the upstream can do this...they should. Unfortunately, the customer signed the contract for bandwidth with inteliquent; we have existing 10G with telia and 10G with cogent along with a couple existing 10G from inteliquent, but I'm not sure if they'll stay. So I didn't really have much say...I think the price point was more important than the benefits of signing to a few carriers. In short, I'm working on that. This traffic should be mostly web. Sorry, I meant to say OSPF and ECMP. I would like to be able to run the VRRP at the end of row and extend L3 as far as I can, but I guess the customer wants to be able to spread machines in the same environments among multiple rows, which is understandable, but that means I need to run L2 from distribution to access. Each row needs 100gbps useable, so I suppose 4 x 40GBE LAGs would do the trick nicely. If my client doesn't want to spend the money in that area... Any good aggregation switch suggestions? Juniper is doesn't provide good ports for $ in the switching realmcustomer balked at the cost for a four port 40G blade on a 9200. Might check out brocade.. Thanks, Morgan On Tue, Jul 2, 2013 at 8:13 AM, Christian de Balorre cdebalo...@neotelecoms.com wrote: Slow control-plane. No RE redundancy. More limited rib fib than regular MX. Cryptic licensing scheme. Otherwise nothing really wrong. Christian Le 02/07/2013 15:55, Drew Weaver a écrit : And what is wrong with the MX80 as a peering/transit router for up to 80Gbps of traffic? Thanks, -Drew -Original Message- From: juniper-nsp [mailto:juniper-nsp-bounces@**puck.nether.net juniper-nsp-boun...@puck.nether.net] On Behalf Of Dobbins, Roland Sent: Tuesday, July 02, 2013 9:01 AM To: juniper-nsp Puck Subject: Re: [j-nsp] Advice on a 100Gbps+ environment On Jul 2, 2013, at 7:19 PM, Mark Tinka wrote: Says who? Doh - MX*480*, not MX*80*. My mistake. --**--** --- Roland Dobbins rdobb...@arbor.net // http://www.arbornetworks.com Luck is the residue of opportunity and design. -- John Milton __**_ juniper-nsp mailing list juniper-nsp@puck.nether.net https://puck.nether.net/**mailman/listinfo/juniper-nsp 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 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 https://puck.nether.net/mailman/listinfo/juniper-nsp -- Thanks, Morgan ___ 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] Advice on a 100Gbps+ environment
The QFX3600 is probably a little expensive for L2, but 64x 10GE ports in a 1RU ToR (or 16x 40GE, or a combination in the middle) is pretty solid. According to the docs they also support link aggregation up to 32 members[1]. Would be interesting to know if this allows 40GE ports to be used natively in an aggregated ethernet... [1] http://www.juniper.net/techpubs/en_US/junos12.3/topics/reference/general/qfx-series-software-features-overview.html#high-availability-features-by-platform-table On Tue, Jul 2, 2013 at 11:00 AM, Morgan McLean wrx...@gmail.com wrote: Wow, this thread snowballed into quite the MX80 debate. For the record, I run two in production where I am employed full time and they perform beautifully, though woefully underutilized. Using static routes and /32's as peering endpoints is a great option I skimmed over, I'll see if the upstream can do this...they should. Unfortunately, the customer signed the contract for bandwidth with inteliquent; we have existing 10G with telia and 10G with cogent along with a couple existing 10G from inteliquent, but I'm not sure if they'll stay. So I didn't really have much say...I think the price point was more important than the benefits of signing to a few carriers. In short, I'm working on that. This traffic should be mostly web. Sorry, I meant to say OSPF and ECMP. I would like to be able to run the VRRP at the end of row and extend L3 as far as I can, but I guess the customer wants to be able to spread machines in the same environments among multiple rows, which is understandable, but that means I need to run L2 from distribution to access. Each row needs 100gbps useable, so I suppose 4 x 40GBE LAGs would do the trick nicely. If my client doesn't want to spend the money in that area... Any good aggregation switch suggestions? Juniper is doesn't provide good ports for $ in the switching realmcustomer balked at the cost for a four port 40G blade on a 9200. Might check out brocade.. Thanks, Morgan On Tue, Jul 2, 2013 at 8:13 AM, Christian de Balorre cdebalo...@neotelecoms.com wrote: Slow control-plane. No RE redundancy. More limited rib fib than regular MX. Cryptic licensing scheme. Otherwise nothing really wrong. Christian Le 02/07/2013 15:55, Drew Weaver a écrit : And what is wrong with the MX80 as a peering/transit router for up to 80Gbps of traffic? Thanks, -Drew -Original Message- From: juniper-nsp [mailto:juniper-nsp-bounces@**puck.nether.net juniper-nsp-boun...@puck.nether.net] On Behalf Of Dobbins, Roland Sent: Tuesday, July 02, 2013 9:01 AM To: juniper-nsp Puck Subject: Re: [j-nsp] Advice on a 100Gbps+ environment On Jul 2, 2013, at 7:19 PM, Mark Tinka wrote: Says who? Doh - MX*480*, not MX*80*. My mistake. --**--** --- Roland Dobbins rdobb...@arbor.net // http://www.arbornetworks.com Luck is the residue of opportunity and design. -- John Milton __**_ juniper-nsp mailing list juniper-nsp@puck.nether.net https://puck.nether.net/**mailman/listinfo/juniper-nsp 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 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 https://puck.nether.net/mailman/listinfo/juniper-nsp -- Thanks, Morgan ___ 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
[j-nsp] Advice on a 100Gbps+ environment
Hi, I've only really dealt with traffic levels under 20Gbps. I have a client that will be pushing over 100gps, and close to 200 within the next six months, at least thats the goal. Judging by the type of traffic it is...I could see it happening. I'm probably in over my head, but thats another topic. The plan is to run OSPF from a couple existing MX480s I setup to a new switching core which is running VRRP and extending L2 out to existing end of row switches. This leaves me with hoping that OSPF ECMP works well enough to push these kinds of traffic levels over a bunch of 10GE links, load balancing between the upstream MX routers. Can I rely on ECMP for this type of setup? Each MX will have about 50Gbps provider connectivity to start, and will have ~150Gbps by the time the contracts ramp up. The MX's are not at the same site, so I'm limited to using 10g links site to site over their cwdm. This leaves me then with a problem; getting a bunch of capacity in L2 form to the EOR switches. At least on the EX4500 (we will move to bigger), the max number of links for a lag is 8, so 80Gbps. And I can't expect to really make complete use of that. Do people use MSTP for this purpose at all? Spreading environments over a couple 80GB, or a few 40GB lags? I could also run 40GE ports in lag...but will juniper devices allow LAGs with 40GE ports? Also...any tips on handling all of the provider connections? I don't know if they will be giving us lags, which means I'll be potentially running 10-15 BGP sessions per MX, which is a lot of routes. They're running the RE-S-1800 quad core 16GB, but should I opt for partial or just default at that point? Its possible all of the links will be from the same provider. -- Thanks, Morgan ___ juniper-nsp mailing list juniper-nsp@puck.nether.net https://puck.nether.net/mailman/listinfo/juniper-nsp
Re: [j-nsp] Advice on a 100Gbps+ environment
On Tue, 2 Jul 2013, Morgan McLean wrote: of row switches. This leaves me with hoping that OSPF ECMP works well enough to push these kinds of traffic levels over a bunch of 10GE links, OSPF is control plane, it'll set up the ECMP and tell the forwarding plane about it. On some platforms, you'll get the same load sharing behaviour regardless if it's L2 (LAG setup with perhaps LACP) or L3 (ECMP setup by OSPF). You never said what kind of traffic this is supposed to handle. If it's a lot of parallell TCP or UDP sessions, then you'll most likely be fine with LAG/ECMP. Also...any tips on handling all of the provider connections? I don't know if they will be giving us lags, which means I'll be potentially running 10-15 BGP sessions per MX, which is a lot of routes. They're running the RE-S-1800 quad core 16GB, but should I opt for partial or just default at that point? Its possible all of the links will be from the same provider. I'd suggest either LAG or ECMP (in case of ECMP, you need to do a static host route to other end on all components, and then do the bgp session to this /32 or /128 with ebgp multihop enabled). Then you only need single session per provider. -- Mikael Abrahamssonemail: swm...@swm.pp.se ___ juniper-nsp mailing list juniper-nsp@puck.nether.net https://puck.nether.net/mailman/listinfo/juniper-nsp
Re: [j-nsp] Advice on a 100Gbps+ environment
On Jul 2, 2013, at 3:58 PM, Morgan McLean wrote: I don't know if they will be giving us lags, which means I'll be potentially running 10-15 BGP sessions per MX, which is a lot of routes. I'm not a Juniper person, but the MXes aren't the recommended boxes for your peering/transit edge. They're running the RE-S-1800 quad core 16GB, but should I opt for partial or just default at that point? No - you want full tables for analytics purposes, if nothing else, plus one suspects you'll be doing a fair amount of traffic engineering, if your anticipated volume actually comes to fruition. Its possible all of the links will be from the same provider. Very Bad Idea. Were I you, I'd look at engaging some organization or group of individuals who have experience with this sort of thing to get it all sorted. --- Roland Dobbins rdobb...@arbor.net // http://www.arbornetworks.com Luck is the residue of opportunity and design. -- John Milton ___ juniper-nsp mailing list juniper-nsp@puck.nether.net https://puck.nether.net/mailman/listinfo/juniper-nsp
Re: [j-nsp] Advice on a 100Gbps+ environment
On Tuesday, July 02, 2013 12:56:43 PM Dobbins, Roland wrote: I'm not a Juniper person, but the MXes aren't the recommended boxes for your peering/transit edge. Says who? They also said the T is a core router. I'm sure I can show you somehow using it as an edge router or route reflector :-). Mark. signature.asc Description: This is a digitally signed message part. ___ juniper-nsp mailing list juniper-nsp@puck.nether.net https://puck.nether.net/mailman/listinfo/juniper-nsp
Re: [j-nsp] Advice on a 100Gbps+ environment
We run pretty much exactly what you describe in the 100Gbps+ scale using MX480s with RE-S-1800 and don't have any problems. Contact me off list if you need any tips. On 13-07-02 04:58 AM, Morgan McLean wrote: Hi, I've only really dealt with traffic levels under 20Gbps. I have a client that will be pushing over 100gps, and close to 200 within the next six months, at least thats the goal. Judging by the type of traffic it is...I could see it happening. I'm probably in over my head, but thats another topic. The plan is to run OSPF from a couple existing MX480s I setup to a new switching core which is running VRRP and extending L2 out to existing end of row switches. This leaves me with hoping that OSPF ECMP works well enough to push these kinds of traffic levels over a bunch of 10GE links, load balancing between the upstream MX routers. Can I rely on ECMP for this type of setup? Each MX will have about 50Gbps provider connectivity to start, and will have ~150Gbps by the time the contracts ramp up. The MX's are not at the same site, so I'm limited to using 10g links site to site over their cwdm. This leaves me then with a problem; getting a bunch of capacity in L2 form to the EOR switches. At least on the EX4500 (we will move to bigger), the max number of links for a lag is 8, so 80Gbps. And I can't expect to really make complete use of that. Do people use MSTP for this purpose at all? Spreading environments over a couple 80GB, or a few 40GB lags? I could also run 40GE ports in lag...but will juniper devices allow LAGs with 40GE ports? Also...any tips on handling all of the provider connections? I don't know if they will be giving us lags, which means I'll be potentially running 10-15 BGP sessions per MX, which is a lot of routes. They're running the RE-S-1800 quad core 16GB, but should I opt for partial or just default at that point? Its possible all of the links will be from the same provider. ___ juniper-nsp mailing list juniper-nsp@puck.nether.net https://puck.nether.net/mailman/listinfo/juniper-nsp
Re: [j-nsp] Advice on a 100Gbps+ environment
On Jul 2, 2013, at 7:34 PM, Gabriel Blanchard wrote: We run pretty much exactly what you describe in the 100Gbps+ scale using MX480s with RE-S-1800 and don't have any problems. Wow, I had no idea those boxes could handle that level of traffic - thanks for the clue! --- Roland Dobbins rdobb...@arbor.net // http://www.arbornetworks.com Luck is the residue of opportunity and design. -- John Milton ___ juniper-nsp mailing list juniper-nsp@puck.nether.net https://puck.nether.net/mailman/listinfo/juniper-nsp
Re: [j-nsp] Advice on a 100Gbps+ environment
On Jul 2, 2013, at 7:19 PM, Mark Tinka wrote: Says who? Doh - MX*480*, not MX*80*. My mistake. --- Roland Dobbins rdobb...@arbor.net // http://www.arbornetworks.com Luck is the residue of opportunity and design. -- John Milton ___ juniper-nsp mailing list juniper-nsp@puck.nether.net https://puck.nether.net/mailman/listinfo/juniper-nsp
Re: [j-nsp] Advice on a 100Gbps+ environment
I'm not a Juniper person, but the MXes aren't the recommended boxes for your peering/transit edge. Says who? They also said the T is a core router. I'm sure I can show you somehow using it as an edge router or route reflector In fact I'd say that MXes are an excellent choice for peering/transit edge. Steinar Haug, AS 2116 ___ juniper-nsp mailing list juniper-nsp@puck.nether.net https://puck.nether.net/mailman/listinfo/juniper-nsp
Re: [j-nsp] Advice on a 100Gbps+ environment
On Jul 2, 2013, at 8:19 PM, sth...@nethelp.no wrote: In fact I'd say that MXes are an excellent choice for peering/transit edge. Yes, I misread the OP's post as saying 'MX80', which is a smaller box, not 'MX480', my mistake. --- Roland Dobbins rdobb...@arbor.net // http://www.arbornetworks.com Luck is the residue of opportunity and design. -- John Milton ___ juniper-nsp mailing list juniper-nsp@puck.nether.net https://puck.nether.net/mailman/listinfo/juniper-nsp
Re: [j-nsp] Advice on a 100Gbps+ environment
And what is wrong with the MX80 as a peering/transit router for up to 80Gbps of traffic? Thanks, -Drew -Original Message- From: juniper-nsp [mailto:juniper-nsp-boun...@puck.nether.net] On Behalf Of Dobbins, Roland Sent: Tuesday, July 02, 2013 9:01 AM To: juniper-nsp Puck Subject: Re: [j-nsp] Advice on a 100Gbps+ environment On Jul 2, 2013, at 7:19 PM, Mark Tinka wrote: Says who? Doh - MX*480*, not MX*80*. My mistake. --- Roland Dobbins rdobb...@arbor.net // http://www.arbornetworks.com Luck is the residue of opportunity and design. -- John Milton ___ 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] Advice on a 100Gbps+ environment
On Tuesday, July 02, 2013 03:00:30 PM Dobbins, Roland wrote: Doh - MX*480*, not MX*80*. My mistake. Well, in fairness, the only thing that kills the MX80 is that crappy PPC control plane. If you can keep your peer sessions under control, the forwarding plane should happily a fair bit of peering traffic (admittedly, not 100Gbps). Mark. signature.asc Description: This is a digitally signed message part. ___ juniper-nsp mailing list juniper-nsp@puck.nether.net https://puck.nether.net/mailman/listinfo/juniper-nsp
Re: [j-nsp] Advice on a 100Gbps+ environment
On Jul 2, 2013, at 8:55 PM, Drew Weaver wrote: And what is wrong with the MX80 as a peering/transit router for up to 80Gbps of traffic? The OP was talking about 200gb/sec or more of traffic, with multiple eBGP peering relationships. --- Roland Dobbins rdobb...@arbor.net // http://www.arbornetworks.com Luck is the residue of opportunity and design. -- John Milton ___ juniper-nsp mailing list juniper-nsp@puck.nether.net https://puck.nether.net/mailman/listinfo/juniper-nsp
Re: [j-nsp] Advice on a 100Gbps+ environment
On Tuesday, July 02, 2013 03:19:27 PM sth...@nethelp.no wrote: In fact I'd say that MXes are an excellent choice for peering/transit edge. Yes, if you have tons of high speed peering, the MX chassis' are good if terminating the links on the box directly is commercially feasible. Otherwise, we relegate peering to ASR9001's, MX80's (very poor CPU, though) and ASR1002-X's (depending on whether 10Gbps will be needed or not). Mark. signature.asc Description: This is a digitally signed message part. ___ juniper-nsp mailing list juniper-nsp@puck.nether.net https://puck.nether.net/mailman/listinfo/juniper-nsp
Re: [j-nsp] Advice on a 100Gbps+ environment
On Tuesday, July 02, 2013 03:55:33 PM Drew Weaver wrote: And what is wrong with the MX80 as a peering/transit router for up to 80Gbps of traffic? If your traffic grows linearly with your peering sessions, it could come like a deck of cards. If not, no reason why the MX80 won't push. Mark. signature.asc Description: This is a digitally signed message part. ___ juniper-nsp mailing list juniper-nsp@puck.nether.net https://puck.nether.net/mailman/listinfo/juniper-nsp
Re: [j-nsp] Advice on a 100Gbps+ environment
Just a smaller FIB table is all I know of, we use them in a few places as transit peering points for the time being. We will probably upgrade to 480's at some point depending on the amount of routes when Ipv6 kicks in and the amount of traffic. Matt -Original Message- From: juniper-nsp [mailto:juniper-nsp-boun...@puck.nether.net] On Behalf Of Drew Weaver Sent: Tuesday, July 02, 2013 9:56 AM To: 'Dobbins, Roland'; 'juniper-nsp Puck' Subject: Re: [j-nsp] Advice on a 100Gbps+ environment And what is wrong with the MX80 as a peering/transit router for up to 80Gbps of traffic? Thanks, -Drew -Original Message- From: juniper-nsp [mailto:juniper-nsp-boun...@puck.nether.net] On Behalf Of Dobbins, Roland Sent: Tuesday, July 02, 2013 9:01 AM To: juniper-nsp Puck Subject: Re: [j-nsp] Advice on a 100Gbps+ environment On Jul 2, 2013, at 7:19 PM, Mark Tinka wrote: Says who? Doh - MX*480*, not MX*80*. My mistake. --- Roland Dobbins rdobb...@arbor.net // http://www.arbornetworks.com Luck is the residue of opportunity and design. -- John Milton ___ 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] Advice on a 100Gbps+ environment
On (2013-07-02 14:07 +), Haynes, Matthew wrote: Just a smaller FIB table is all I know of, we use them in a few places as transit peering points for the time being. We will probably upgrade to 480's at some point depending on the amount of routes when Ipv6 kicks in and the amount of traffic. Exactly same FIB as everything up-to T4k FPC5. Control-plane is only thing different. The PQ3 CPU is rather modest for OS like JunOS and the 2GB DRAM isn't nothing to write to home about either. MX104 has faster QorIQ core and 4GB DRAM. -- ++ytti ___ juniper-nsp mailing list juniper-nsp@puck.nether.net https://puck.nether.net/mailman/listinfo/juniper-nsp
Re: [j-nsp] Advice on a 100Gbps+ environment
On 03/07/13 00:56, Darius Jahandarie wrote: On Tue, Jul 2, 2013 at 9:55 AM, Drew Weaver drew.wea...@thenap.com wrote: And what is wrong with the MX80 as a peering/transit router for up to 80Gbps of traffic? The lack of redundant REs + inability to have an external RE. Other than the amount of CPU capacity on the MX80 (which has been done to death here) do you really have RE's fail often enough to be a problem? Sure on the larger boxes they're cheap enough that if you're really loading the boxes you might as well have one, but if you add it up I doubt they save that much downtime. The most common failure I've seen on Juniper RE's (by far) is HDD failures, which is largely mitigated on current kit with SSD's. signature.asc Description: OpenPGP digital signature ___ juniper-nsp mailing list juniper-nsp@puck.nether.net https://puck.nether.net/mailman/listinfo/juniper-nsp
Re: [j-nsp] Advice on a 100Gbps+ environment
You buy 4x MX80s for the price of a fully redundant MX240, 480, etc. Not saying that price is everything. -Original Message- From: Darius Jahandarie [mailto:djahanda...@gmail.com] Sent: Tuesday, July 02, 2013 10:57 AM To: Drew Weaver Cc: Dobbins, Roland; juniper-nsp Puck Subject: Re: [j-nsp] Advice on a 100Gbps+ environment On Tue, Jul 2, 2013 at 9:55 AM, Drew Weaver drew.wea...@thenap.com wrote: And what is wrong with the MX80 as a peering/transit router for up to 80Gbps of traffic? The lack of redundant REs + inability to have an external RE. -- Darius Jahandarie ___ juniper-nsp mailing list juniper-nsp@puck.nether.net https://puck.nether.net/mailman/listinfo/juniper-nsp
Re: [j-nsp] Advice on a 100Gbps+ environment
On Tuesday, July 02, 2013 04:50:43 PM Saku Ytti wrote: MX104 has faster QorIQ core and 4GB DRAM. Althought I'd have been happier to see a 1U MX switch-router from Juniper, the MX104 is a reasonably welcome chassis, particularly if you're looking at mixed Ethernet and non- Ethernet (mostly non-Ethernet) deployments in the edge. I'm talking STM-1/OC-3, STM-4/OC-12, STM-16/OC-48, that type of thing. Low-speed ports are quite a waste in a chassis with this much muscle, but if you want to stick them without completely feeling raped, the MX104 is not such a bad compromise, all things considered. We've mostly looked at Cisco's ASR1006 for this, but the MX104 is now a considerable answer to that platform. The only problem will be that Cisco SPA's are way cheaper than Juniper MIC's, particularly if you buy them on the grey market (making them quite available in the wild for peanuts). And if you've come from a Cisco chassis that needed them (think SIP carriers cards on the Cisco 6500, 7600, XR 12000, e.t.c.), then you'd be remiss not migrate them to an ASR1000. Nonetheless, a mighty effort from Juniper. Those on-board 10Gbps Ethernet ports will certainly give the ASR1000 something to think about, although if you're mostly using an ASR1000 or MX104 for non-Ethernet terminations in the edge, you're unlikely to ever feel constrained on 1x or even 2x 10Gbps uplinks into the core, never mind 4x. Cheers, Mark. signature.asc Description: This is a digitally signed message part. ___ juniper-nsp mailing list juniper-nsp@puck.nether.net https://puck.nether.net/mailman/listinfo/juniper-nsp
Re: [j-nsp] Advice on a 100Gbps+ environment
On Tuesday, July 02, 2013 05:09:44 PM Julien Goodwin wrote: Other than the amount of CPU capacity on the MX80 (which has been done to death here) do you really have RE's fail often enough to be a problem? When we had chassis-based core switches, we slowly moved away from dual control planes to a single one, given the work being done (Layer 2 switching only) and the reliability that has gone into the platforms over time. So much so that now, our core switching happens on 1U chassis that have multi-rate Ethernet ports, i.e., Cisco 4500-X or Juniper EX4550. The only time we'll ever see chassis-based core switches again is if we're doing some kind of data centre core aggregation in a specific PoP, if ever, since routers are now either small and powerful or big and powerful enough that the days of needing 300 to serve your edge in one PoP are long gone. On the routing side, however, we've had cases where routers have been rock solid for years, and others have had a bad batch of RE's, nearly all at the same time. Moreover, for software upgrades (even in planned windows), it's always good to have a secondary RE to which you can dump traffic until you complete an upgrade cycle on the other. Mark. signature.asc Description: This is a digitally signed message part. ___ juniper-nsp mailing list juniper-nsp@puck.nether.net https://puck.nether.net/mailman/listinfo/juniper-nsp
Re: [j-nsp] Advice on a 100Gbps+ environment
And what is wrong with the MX80 as a peering/transit router for up to 80Gbps of traffic? Not sure how you count up to 80Gbps. Under normal circumstances you would use the 4 fixed ports as uplinks, meaning 2x10Gbps towards two uplink routers. So if you're extremely lucky with your load balancing, you might do close to 40Gbps. Until one of your uplinks fails... Aside from that, the lack of redundant control plane (as others have mentioned) could be important. Steinar Haug, AS 2116 ___ juniper-nsp mailing list juniper-nsp@puck.nether.net https://puck.nether.net/mailman/listinfo/juniper-nsp
Re: [j-nsp] Advice on a 100Gbps+ environment
On Tuesday, July 02, 2013 05:31:08 PM sth...@nethelp.no wrote: Not sure how you count up to 80Gbps. As a friend of mine used to say, Californian Count :-). 40 * 2 Mark. signature.asc Description: This is a digitally signed message part. ___ juniper-nsp mailing list juniper-nsp@puck.nether.net https://puck.nether.net/mailman/listinfo/juniper-nsp
Re: [j-nsp] Advice on a 100Gbps+ environment
Slow control-plane. No RE redundancy. More limited rib fib than regular MX. Cryptic licensing scheme. Otherwise nothing really wrong. Christian Le 02/07/2013 15:55, Drew Weaver a écrit : And what is wrong with the MX80 as a peering/transit router for up to 80Gbps of traffic? Thanks, -Drew -Original Message- From: juniper-nsp [mailto:juniper-nsp-boun...@puck.nether.net] On Behalf Of Dobbins, Roland Sent: Tuesday, July 02, 2013 9:01 AM To: juniper-nsp Puck Subject: Re: [j-nsp] Advice on a 100Gbps+ environment On Jul 2, 2013, at 7:19 PM, Mark Tinka wrote: Says who? Doh - MX*480*, not MX*80*. My mistake. --- Roland Dobbins rdobb...@arbor.net // http://www.arbornetworks.com Luck is the residue of opportunity and design. -- John Milton ___ 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] Advice on a 100Gbps+ environment
Wow, this thread snowballed into quite the MX80 debate. For the record, I run two in production where I am employed full time and they perform beautifully, though woefully underutilized. Using static routes and /32's as peering endpoints is a great option I skimmed over, I'll see if the upstream can do this...they should. Unfortunately, the customer signed the contract for bandwidth with inteliquent; we have existing 10G with telia and 10G with cogent along with a couple existing 10G from inteliquent, but I'm not sure if they'll stay. So I didn't really have much say...I think the price point was more important than the benefits of signing to a few carriers. In short, I'm working on that. This traffic should be mostly web. Sorry, I meant to say OSPF and ECMP. I would like to be able to run the VRRP at the end of row and extend L3 as far as I can, but I guess the customer wants to be able to spread machines in the same environments among multiple rows, which is understandable, but that means I need to run L2 from distribution to access. Each row needs 100gbps useable, so I suppose 4 x 40GBE LAGs would do the trick nicely. If my client doesn't want to spend the money in that area... Any good aggregation switch suggestions? Juniper is doesn't provide good ports for $ in the switching realmcustomer balked at the cost for a four port 40G blade on a 9200. Might check out brocade.. Thanks, Morgan On Tue, Jul 2, 2013 at 8:13 AM, Christian de Balorre cdebalo...@neotelecoms.com wrote: Slow control-plane. No RE redundancy. More limited rib fib than regular MX. Cryptic licensing scheme. Otherwise nothing really wrong. Christian Le 02/07/2013 15:55, Drew Weaver a écrit : And what is wrong with the MX80 as a peering/transit router for up to 80Gbps of traffic? Thanks, -Drew -Original Message- From: juniper-nsp [mailto:juniper-nsp-bounces@**puck.nether.netjuniper-nsp-boun...@puck.nether.net] On Behalf Of Dobbins, Roland Sent: Tuesday, July 02, 2013 9:01 AM To: juniper-nsp Puck Subject: Re: [j-nsp] Advice on a 100Gbps+ environment On Jul 2, 2013, at 7:19 PM, Mark Tinka wrote: Says who? Doh - MX*480*, not MX*80*. My mistake. --**--** --- Roland Dobbins rdobb...@arbor.net // http://www.arbornetworks.com Luck is the residue of opportunity and design. -- John Milton __**_ juniper-nsp mailing list juniper-nsp@puck.nether.net https://puck.nether.net/**mailman/listinfo/juniper-nsphttps://puck.nether.net/mailman/listinfo/juniper-nsp __**_ juniper-nsp mailing list juniper-nsp@puck.nether.net https://puck.nether.net/**mailman/listinfo/juniper-nsphttps://puck.nether.net/mailman/listinfo/juniper-nsp __**_ juniper-nsp mailing list juniper-nsp@puck.nether.net https://puck.nether.net/**mailman/listinfo/juniper-nsphttps://puck.nether.net/mailman/listinfo/juniper-nsp -- Thanks, Morgan ___ juniper-nsp mailing list juniper-nsp@puck.nether.net https://puck.nether.net/mailman/listinfo/juniper-nsp
Re: [j-nsp] Advice on a 100Gbps+ environment
On Jul 2, 2013, at 1:00 PM, Morgan McLean wrx...@gmail.com wrote: Any good aggregation switch suggestions? Juniper is doesn't provide good ports for $ in the switching realmcustomer balked at the cost for a four port 40G blade on a 9200. Might check out brocade.. If you want to remain Juniper what about the QFX3600? Else Brocade has low cost ports. ___ juniper-nsp mailing list juniper-nsp@puck.nether.net https://puck.nether.net/mailman/listinfo/juniper-nsp
