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 y

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 wit

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 a

Re: [j-nsp] experience with modeling tool

Get a demo of Packet Design Route Explorer as well. Www.packetdesign.com 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

Re: [j-nsp] experience with modeling tool

> -Original Message- > From: juniper-nsp [mailto:juniper-nsp-boun...@puck.nether.net] On Behalf > Of Phil Bedard > Sent: Wednesday, December 24, 2014 11:41 AM > To: jjs...@aol.com; juniper-nsp@puck.nether.net > Subject: Re: [j-nsp] experience with modeling tool > > Junosphere doesn't do th

Re: [j-nsp] experience with modeling tool

Junosphere doesn't do that type of modeling and simulation but WANDL does. Juniper may be working on Junosphere/WANDL integration now that they own WANDL. They used to support Cariden MATE within Junosphere but stopped when Cisco bought Cariden. WANDL will certainly do what you want, I would

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.

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" 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 Ex

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 havin

Re: [j-nsp] ntpd vulnerability

Hi, Check this out! https://prsearch.juniper.net/InfoCenter/index?page=prcontent&id=PR931184 HTH, Ivan, On Tue, Dec 23, 2014 at 5:01 PM, Jean Benoit wrote: > Hello, > > Does anyone know if Juniper has issued a patched version > of JunOS for the following vulnerabilities in ntpd ? > >