Re: [j-nsp] EX4200 vs. C4948
Don't forget dual power supply in the box. Thats nice. 10.0r3 is coming and we will be moving all of our EXs to it when it arrives. As far as egress policing, it isn't there today. However, you could configure a port-level or queue-level shaping-rate. You could then change the default transmit-rate (or buffer-size) parameter for the best effort queue to 0 percent. This would effectively accomplish the same thing as policing, I think. Unless you are marking traffic egress based on egress utilization, then I don't think there is a way to accomplish that. From: Pavel Gulchouck To: Bill Blackford Cc: "juniper-nsp@puck.nether.net" Sent: Tue, February 23, 2010 1:38:42 PM Subject: Re: [j-nsp] EX4200 vs. C4948 >From my point, EX4200 now has almost all features of cat3750G/cat3750E importance for NSP: ingress policing, stp (incl. pvstp and rapid-stp), lacp, qinq, bpdu tunneling (in 10.x); L3 features: ospf, vrf, limited bgp (with license)... But in addition to this EX4200 has: - working firewall counters; - junoscripts (incl. event scripts); - vlan translation (in 10.x, not tested by me); - pseudowires (not tested by me); - ipv6 (not sure, not tested by me). And as for me JunOS is better then IOS (commit, rollback, commit confirmed etc.). On Tue, Feb 23, 2010 at 08:37:15AM -0800, Bill Blackford writes: > There is an interesting thread on the C list right now discussing the > benefits of a l3 switch platform (OP started asking about 3550). > I am budgeting to replace some 3560G and 3750G customer aggregation devices > (OSPF, BGP) with devices that will scale better, have redundant power, can do > service policies both input and output and yes it would be nice if it can > handle V6 in hardware (last point not an issue yet as V4 is all I support at > this time). I am not budgeted for nor do I have environment that requires MX > series or a cat6.5/7.6k in this role. It's gonna have to be fixed switches. > Does the EX4200 support firewall policer that can be applied both input and > output? (equiv to "C" service policy). My tests on a EX3200 9.5R2.7 seem to > indicate that I cannot use a policer on egress. I have no 4200's to test this > with. > It would be nice to see a feature comparison. Not wanting to start a holy war > over vendor preference, but has a discussion comparing these two products > occurred on this list? -- Pavel ___ 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] EX4200 vs. C4948
>From my point, EX4200 now has almost all features of cat3750G/cat3750E importance for NSP: ingress policing, stp (incl. pvstp and rapid-stp), lacp, qinq, bpdu tunneling (in 10.x); L3 features: ospf, vrf, limited bgp (with license)... But in addition to this EX4200 has: - working firewall counters; - junoscripts (incl. event scripts); - vlan translation (in 10.x, not tested by me); - pseudowires (not tested by me); - ipv6 (not sure, not tested by me). And as for me JunOS is better then IOS (commit, rollback, commit confirmed etc.). On Tue, Feb 23, 2010 at 08:37:15AM -0800, Bill Blackford writes: > There is an interesting thread on the C list right now discussing the > benefits of a l3 switch platform (OP started asking about 3550). > I am budgeting to replace some 3560G and 3750G customer aggregation devices > (OSPF, BGP) with devices that will scale better, have redundant power, can do > service policies both input and output and yes it would be nice if it can > handle V6 in hardware (last point not an issue yet as V4 is all I support at > this time). I am not budgeted for nor do I have environment that requires MX > series or a cat6.5/7.6k in this role. It's gonna have to be fixed switches. > Does the EX4200 support firewall policer that can be applied both input and > output? (equiv to "C" service policy). My tests on a EX3200 9.5R2.7 seem to > indicate that I cannot use a policer on egress. I have no 4200's to test this > with. > It would be nice to see a feature comparison. Not wanting to start a holy war > over vendor preference, but has a discussion comparing these two products > occurred on this list? -- Pavel ___ juniper-nsp mailing list juniper-nsp@puck.nether.net https://puck.nether.net/mailman/listinfo/juniper-nsp
Re: [j-nsp] EX4200 vs. C4948
If you're not in a rush, you might find the upcoming EX4300 interesting. It's supposed to be based on the MX hardware, which suggests that policers would be better supported. On Feb 23, 2010, at 10:37 AM, Bill Blackford wrote: > There is an interesting thread on the C list right now discussing the > benefits of a l3 switch platform (OP started asking about 3550). > > I am budgeting to replace some 3560G and 3750G customer aggregation devices > (OSPF, BGP) with devices that will scale better, have redundant power, can do > service policies both input and output and yes it would be nice if it can > handle V6 in hardware (last point not an issue yet as V4 is all I support at > this time). I am not budgeted for nor do I have environment that requires MX > series or a cat6.5/7.6k in this role. It's gonna have to be fixed switches. > > Does the EX4200 support firewall policer that can be applied both input and > output? (equiv to "C" service policy). My tests on a EX3200 9.5R2.7 seem to > indicate that I cannot use a policer on egress. I have no 4200's to test this > with. > > It would be nice to see a feature comparison. Not wanting to start a holy war > over vendor preference, but has a discussion comparing these two products > occurred on this list? > > Thanks, > > -b > > > > -- > Bill Blackford > Senior Network Engineer > Technology Systems Group > Northwest Regional ESD > > Logged into reality and abusing my sudo priviledges... > > > > ___ > 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] EX4200 vs. C4948
There is an interesting thread on the C list right now discussing the benefits of a l3 switch platform (OP started asking about 3550). I am budgeting to replace some 3560G and 3750G customer aggregation devices (OSPF, BGP) with devices that will scale better, have redundant power, can do service policies both input and output and yes it would be nice if it can handle V6 in hardware (last point not an issue yet as V4 is all I support at this time). I am not budgeted for nor do I have environment that requires MX series or a cat6.5/7.6k in this role. It's gonna have to be fixed switches. Does the EX4200 support firewall policer that can be applied both input and output? (equiv to "C" service policy). My tests on a EX3200 9.5R2.7 seem to indicate that I cannot use a policer on egress. I have no 4200's to test this with. It would be nice to see a feature comparison. Not wanting to start a holy war over vendor preference, but has a discussion comparing these two products occurred on this list? Thanks, -b -- Bill Blackford Senior Network Engineer Technology Systems Group Northwest Regional ESD Logged into reality and abusing my sudo priviledges... ___ juniper-nsp mailing list juniper-nsp@puck.nether.net https://puck.nether.net/mailman/listinfo/juniper-nsp
