Re: [j-nsp] juniper qfx5100 vs ex9200
It all comes down to what kind of features and scale you want on the edge of the network. The QFX5100 is a pretty capable box, it does things the EX9200 doesn't do like RSVP-TE. You aren't going to find anything comparable from another vendor, especially if you want MPLS. I'd talk to Juniper because they should have some new stuff coming out next year which is very decent as well. Doug Hanks just wrote a good QFX5100 book and it's pretty cheap on O'Reilly if you really want to more about it in depth. Phil From: Randy Manning rmann...@packetdesign.com Date: Wednesday, December 24, 2014 at 10:37 PM To: Phil Bedard phil...@gmail.com, Nitzan Tzelniker nitzan.tzelni...@gmail.com Cc: Chuck Anderson c...@wpi.edu, juniper-nsp@puck.nether.net juniper-nsp@puck.nether.net Subject: Re: [j-nsp] juniper qfx5100 vs ex9200 Who is right? Phil or Nitzan? I don’t want to do a layer 3 only platform like the MX? Should I look at Cisco? Thanks, - Randy Manning Systems Engineer Packet Design | 7801 N. Capital of Texas Hwy, Suite 230 | Austin, TX 78731 Office: +1.301.395.1772 | Fax: +1.512.865.6950 Visit our Website | Follow us on Twitter | Join us on LinkedIn From: Phil Bedard phil...@gmail.com Date: Wednesday, December 24, 2014 at 4:11 PM To: Nitzan Tzelniker nitzan.tzelni...@gmail.com Cc: Chuck Anderson c...@wpi.edu, Randall Manning rmann...@packetdesign.com, juniper-nsp@puck.nether.net juniper-nsp@puck.nether.net Subject: Re: [j-nsp] juniper qfx5100 vs ex9200 I think the 9200 actually has less QoS features and less buffers than the MX cards, but it depends on which MX cards you have. The EX9200 linecards are generally cheaper because it doesn't have the features or FIB capacity the MX cards do. It's exactly the same chassis/midplane/fabric with a slightly modified chipset on the linecards, and the linecards are a different color. The MX does L2, VXLAN, OVSDB, OpenFlow, etc. There is no reason they couldn't have made the same linecards for the MX, but it requires more software development to deal with interop versions between cards with different resources. It was kind of a mess with the DPC/MPC, maybe that was reason enough to say you couldn't mix and match linecards. Phil From: Nitzan Tzelniker nitzan.tzelni...@gmail.com Date: Wednesday, December 24, 2014 at 1:30 PM To: Phil Bedard phil...@gmail.com Cc: Chuck Anderson c...@wpi.edu, Randy Manning rmann...@packetdesign.com, juniper-nsp@puck.nether.net juniper-nsp@puck.nether.net Subject: Re: [j-nsp] juniper qfx5100 vs ex9200 My view EX9200 has better qos features, larger buffers 100G interfaces , better L2 features (QinQ,Vlan per port ... ) ,VxLAN routing BTW to prevent SP from using the 9200 as P router it doesn't support RSVP For most cases QFX will do the job but if you want MX for your DC but 80/104 is to small and 240 is to expensive the EX9200 is a great box Nitzan On Wed, Dec 24, 2014 at 6:30 PM, Phil Bedard phil...@gmail.com wrote: I believe the QFX5100 will support EVPN, but using VXLAN as the underlying forwarding mechanism instead of MPLS. So technically the P boxes in the middle just need to do IP routing and not MPLS. TBH I never understood the 9200, it reminds me of the 6500/7600 split except it's the 9200/MX. Phil -Original Message- From: Chuck Anderson c...@wpi.edu Sent: 12/24/2014 10:08 AM To: Randy Manning rmann...@packetdesign.com Cc: juniper-nsp@puck.nether.net juniper-nsp@puck.nether.net Subject: Re: [j-nsp] juniper qfx5100 vs ex9200 EX9200 has more potential to support more MPLS features as a PE, like EVPN. QFX5100 is a nice box, but won't do much MPLS (L3VPN, but no L2VPN, VPLS or EVPN). See the Feature Explorer: http://pathfinder.juniper.net/feature-explorer/search-features.html Interestingly, EX9200 isn't shown as having L3VPN support. You need to take the Feature Explorer with a grain of salt. If you look up BGP for L2VPNs and L3VPNs for example, it only shows PTX support for that feature, but of course MX supports that too. On Wed, Dec 24, 2014 at 03:55:30AM +, Randy Manning wrote: People, Any advice on a distribution layer switch for campus networks? juniper qfx5100 vs ex9200? I am not sure what the requirements need to be a priority. The core is MX 960 and currently routing. I am thinking about campus distro¹s becoming PE with TE and allowing the core¹s to label switch only? Given the current network and possible change, which platform is the best? Qfx or ex? Data centers are working well with q-fabric, but I understand that has been abandoned by juniperŠ. Which is sadŠ I liked the eVPN BGP NLRI design. Thanks, - Randy ___ 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
Re: [j-nsp] juniper qfx5100 vs ex9200
EX9200 has more potential to support more MPLS features as a PE, like EVPN. QFX5100 is a nice box, but won't do much MPLS (L3VPN, but no L2VPN, VPLS or EVPN). See the Feature Explorer: http://pathfinder.juniper.net/feature-explorer/search-features.html Interestingly, EX9200 isn't shown as having L3VPN support. You need to take the Feature Explorer with a grain of salt. If you look up BGP for L2VPNs and L3VPNs for example, it only shows PTX support for that feature, but of course MX supports that too. On Wed, Dec 24, 2014 at 03:55:30AM +, Randy Manning wrote: People, Any advice on a distribution layer switch for campus networks? juniper qfx5100 vs ex9200? I am not sure what the requirements need to be a priority. The core is MX 960 and currently routing. I am thinking about campus distro¹s becoming PE with TE and allowing the core¹s to label switch only? Given the current network and possible change, which platform is the best? Qfx or ex? Data centers are working well with q-fabric, but I understand that has been abandoned by juniperŠ. Which is sadŠ I liked the eVPN BGP NLRI design. Thanks, - Randy ___ juniper-nsp mailing list juniper-nsp@puck.nether.net https://puck.nether.net/mailman/listinfo/juniper-nsp
Re: [j-nsp] juniper qfx5100 vs ex9200
QFX5100 has L2VPN (LDP based) now, and will get EVPN support.. On Dec 24, 2014 7:07 AM, Chuck Anderson c...@wpi.edu wrote: EX9200 has more potential to support more MPLS features as a PE, like EVPN. QFX5100 is a nice box, but won't do much MPLS (L3VPN, but no L2VPN, VPLS or EVPN). See the Feature Explorer: http://pathfinder.juniper.net/feature-explorer/search-features.html Interestingly, EX9200 isn't shown as having L3VPN support. You need to take the Feature Explorer with a grain of salt. If you look up BGP for L2VPNs and L3VPNs for example, it only shows PTX support for that feature, but of course MX supports that too. On Wed, Dec 24, 2014 at 03:55:30AM +, Randy Manning wrote: People, Any advice on a distribution layer switch for campus networks? juniper qfx5100 vs ex9200? I am not sure what the requirements need to be a priority. The core is MX 960 and currently routing. I am thinking about campus distro¹s becoming PE with TE and allowing the core¹s to label switch only? Given the current network and possible change, which platform is the best? Qfx or ex? Data centers are working well with q-fabric, but I understand that has been abandoned by juniperŠ. Which is sadŠ I liked the eVPN BGP NLRI design. Thanks, - Randy ___ 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] juniper qfx5100 vs ex9200
I believe the QFX5100 will support EVPN, but using VXLAN as the underlying forwarding mechanism instead of MPLS. So technically the P boxes in the middle just need to do IP routing and not MPLS. TBH I never understood the 9200, it reminds me of the 6500/7600 split except it's the 9200/MX. Phil -Original Message- From: Chuck Anderson c...@wpi.edu Sent: 12/24/2014 10:08 AM To: Randy Manning rmann...@packetdesign.com Cc: juniper-nsp@puck.nether.net juniper-nsp@puck.nether.net Subject: Re: [j-nsp] juniper qfx5100 vs ex9200 EX9200 has more potential to support more MPLS features as a PE, like EVPN. QFX5100 is a nice box, but won't do much MPLS (L3VPN, but no L2VPN, VPLS or EVPN). See the Feature Explorer: http://pathfinder.juniper.net/feature-explorer/search-features.html Interestingly, EX9200 isn't shown as having L3VPN support. You need to take the Feature Explorer with a grain of salt. If you look up BGP for L2VPNs and L3VPNs for example, it only shows PTX support for that feature, but of course MX supports that too. On Wed, Dec 24, 2014 at 03:55:30AM +, Randy Manning wrote: People, Any advice on a distribution layer switch for campus networks? juniper qfx5100 vs ex9200? I am not sure what the requirements need to be a priority. The core is MX 960 and currently routing. I am thinking about campus distro¹s becoming PE with TE and allowing the core¹s to label switch only? Given the current network and possible change, which platform is the best? Qfx or ex? Data centers are working well with q-fabric, but I understand that has been abandoned by juniperŠ. Which is sadŠ I liked the eVPN BGP NLRI design. Thanks, - Randy ___ 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] juniper qfx5100 vs ex9200
My view EX9200 has better qos features, larger buffers 100G interfaces , better L2 features (QinQ,Vlan per port ... ) ,VxLAN routing BTW to prevent SP from using the 9200 as P router it doesn't support RSVP For most cases QFX will do the job but if you want MX for your DC but 80/104 is to small and 240 is to expensive the EX9200 is a great box Nitzan On Wed, Dec 24, 2014 at 6:30 PM, Phil Bedard phil...@gmail.com wrote: I believe the QFX5100 will support EVPN, but using VXLAN as the underlying forwarding mechanism instead of MPLS. So technically the P boxes in the middle just need to do IP routing and not MPLS. TBH I never understood the 9200, it reminds me of the 6500/7600 split except it's the 9200/MX. Phil -Original Message- From: Chuck Anderson c...@wpi.edu Sent: 12/24/2014 10:08 AM To: Randy Manning rmann...@packetdesign.com Cc: juniper-nsp@puck.nether.net juniper-nsp@puck.nether.net Subject: Re: [j-nsp] juniper qfx5100 vs ex9200 EX9200 has more potential to support more MPLS features as a PE, like EVPN. QFX5100 is a nice box, but won't do much MPLS (L3VPN, but no L2VPN, VPLS or EVPN). See the Feature Explorer: http://pathfinder.juniper.net/feature-explorer/search-features.html Interestingly, EX9200 isn't shown as having L3VPN support. You need to take the Feature Explorer with a grain of salt. If you look up BGP for L2VPNs and L3VPNs for example, it only shows PTX support for that feature, but of course MX supports that too. On Wed, Dec 24, 2014 at 03:55:30AM +, Randy Manning wrote: People, Any advice on a distribution layer switch for campus networks? juniper qfx5100 vs ex9200? I am not sure what the requirements need to be a priority. The core is MX 960 and currently routing. I am thinking about campus distro¹s becoming PE with TE and allowing the core¹s to label switch only? Given the current network and possible change, which platform is the best? Qfx or ex? Data centers are working well with q-fabric, but I understand that has been abandoned by juniperŠ. Which is sadŠ I liked the eVPN BGP NLRI design. Thanks, - Randy ___ 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] juniper qfx5100 vs ex9200
I think the 9200 actually has less QoS features and less buffers than the MX cards, but it depends on which MX cards you have. The EX9200 linecards are generally cheaper because it doesn't have the features or FIB capacity the MX cards do. It's exactly the same chassis/midplane/fabric with a slightly modified chipset on the linecards, and the linecards are a different color. The MX does L2, VXLAN, OVSDB, OpenFlow, etc. There is no reason they couldn't have made the same linecards for the MX, but it requires more software development to deal with interop versions between cards with different resources. It was kind of a mess with the DPC/MPC, maybe that was reason enough to say you couldn't mix and match linecards. Phil From: Nitzan Tzelniker nitzan.tzelni...@gmail.com Date: Wednesday, December 24, 2014 at 1:30 PM To: Phil Bedard phil...@gmail.com Cc: Chuck Anderson c...@wpi.edu, Randy Manning rmann...@packetdesign.com, juniper-nsp@puck.nether.net juniper-nsp@puck.nether.net Subject: Re: [j-nsp] juniper qfx5100 vs ex9200 My view EX9200 has better qos features, larger buffers 100G interfaces , better L2 features (QinQ,Vlan per port ... ) ,VxLAN routing BTW to prevent SP from using the 9200 as P router it doesn't support RSVP For most cases QFX will do the job but if you want MX for your DC but 80/104 is to small and 240 is to expensive the EX9200 is a great box Nitzan On Wed, Dec 24, 2014 at 6:30 PM, Phil Bedard phil...@gmail.com wrote: I believe the QFX5100 will support EVPN, but using VXLAN as the underlying forwarding mechanism instead of MPLS. So technically the P boxes in the middle just need to do IP routing and not MPLS. TBH I never understood the 9200, it reminds me of the 6500/7600 split except it's the 9200/MX. Phil -Original Message- From: Chuck Anderson c...@wpi.edu Sent: 12/24/2014 10:08 AM To: Randy Manning rmann...@packetdesign.com Cc: juniper-nsp@puck.nether.net juniper-nsp@puck.nether.net Subject: Re: [j-nsp] juniper qfx5100 vs ex9200 EX9200 has more potential to support more MPLS features as a PE, like EVPN. QFX5100 is a nice box, but won't do much MPLS (L3VPN, but no L2VPN, VPLS or EVPN). See the Feature Explorer: http://pathfinder.juniper.net/feature-explorer/search-features.html Interestingly, EX9200 isn't shown as having L3VPN support. You need to take the Feature Explorer with a grain of salt. If you look up BGP for L2VPNs and L3VPNs for example, it only shows PTX support for that feature, but of course MX supports that too. On Wed, Dec 24, 2014 at 03:55:30AM +, Randy Manning wrote: People, Any advice on a distribution layer switch for campus networks? juniper qfx5100 vs ex9200? I am not sure what the requirements need to be a priority. The core is MX 960 and currently routing. I am thinking about campus distro¹s becoming PE with TE and allowing the core¹s to label switch only? Given the current network and possible change, which platform is the best? Qfx or ex? Data centers are working well with q-fabric, but I understand that has been abandoned by juniperŠ. Which is sadŠ I liked the eVPN BGP NLRI design. Thanks, - Randy ___ 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] juniper qfx5100 vs ex9200
Have you considered flipping it around? QFX in the core and MX on the edge? The QFX appears to be a very capable (and affordable!) LSR. The MX is great because of its edge features. It’s a little wasted doing nothing more than LSR duties. I’ve also heard that there will be a new QFX early next year that will have upgraded control plane hardware which should make it a more capable PER. -John ___ juniper-nsp mailing list juniper-nsp@puck.nether.net https://puck.nether.net/mailman/listinfo/juniper-nsp
[j-nsp] juniper qfx5100 vs ex9200
People, Any advice on a distribution layer switch for campus networks? juniper qfx5100 vs ex9200? I am not sure what the requirements need to be a priority. The core is MX 960 and currently routing. I am thinking about campus distro¹s becoming PE with TE and allowing the core¹s to label switch only? Given the current network and possible change, which platform is the best? Qfx or ex? Data centers are working well with q-fabric, but I understand that has been abandoned by juniperŠ. Which is sadŠ I liked the eVPN BGP NLRI design. Thanks, - Randy ___ juniper-nsp mailing list juniper-nsp@puck.nether.net https://puck.nether.net/mailman/listinfo/juniper-nsp
