hey,
Yep, Juniper told us at the time that Fusion was based on open
standards (802.1BR) and not proprietary in any way. Funny how they
don't support the use of any other 802.1BR complaint device and, I
doubt it would work. They must have some property gubbins in there
like pushing the Fusion
On Thu, 8 Nov 2018 at 20:33, James Bensley wrote:
> Yep, Juniper told us at the time that Fusion was based on open standards
> (802.1BR) and not proprietary in any way. Funny how they don't support the
> use of any other 802.1BR complaint device and, I doubt it would work. They
> must have
On 8 November 2018 14:23:02 GMT, Tarko Tikan wrote:
>hey,
>
>> There is
>> nothing wrong with layer 2 aggregation switches in my opinion, the
>> only technical advantage in my opinion to using SP Fusion for a layer
>> 1 extension to a router compared to a layer 2 switch is that SP
>Fusion
>>
hey,
There is
nothing wrong with layer 2 aggregation switches in my opinion, the
only technical advantage in my opinion to using SP Fusion for a layer
1 extension to a router compared to a layer 2 switch is that SP Fusion
is one device to configure and monitor instead of two.
Except that it's
On Wed, 7 Nov 2018 at 13:03, Antti Ristimäki wrote:
> Wrt the original question about possible issues with Fusion, we have faced
> quite a many. Currently one of the biggest pains is to get CoS configured
> properly on Fusion ports. We have a case open, where any CoS scheduler change
> stops
Hi,
We also went with the Fusion with MX10k routers, just because we need 1GE
interfaces and also 10GE interfaces with e.g. colored optics. In my opinion
traditional L2 aggregation style would have been the preferred and probably
more robust way, but then depending on the satellite device it
Agree 100%. If you need L3 for 1GE edge, no solution today. That solution
(late 1H2019 or 2H2019) will come with EVPN/VXLAN support on EX4300-MP, from
what I hear. If you can get away with just L2 at 1GE edge, than ESI-LAG to any
L2 Access will work. Yes you can also use QFX5K Agg running
at a higher price point.
Good luck.
Richard McGovern
Sr Sales Engineer, Juniper Networks
978-618-3342
From: Eldon Koyle
Date: Tuesday, November 6, 2018 at 1:30 PM
To: Richard McGovern
Cc: Juniper List
Subject: Re: [j-nsp] Opinions on fusion provider edge
We are looking at a mix of QFX5100
Hey Richard,
I think there are two separate issues here. Lot of people looking at
Fusion aren't choosing it for technology, they are choosing it for
media, as 1GE L3 ports are not available. So options are
a) L2 aggregation
b) Fusion
c) Wait for JNPR to release some MX244 with 4xQSFP28 + 40xSFP+
We are looking at a mix of QFX5100-48S and EX4300-32F (somewhere between 6
and 10 devices total). It looks like the QFX supports EVPN, but Juniper
doesn't seem to have any relatively inexpensive 1Gbe devices with EVPN
support.
We are planning on dual-homing most of our buildings (strictly L2,
I might suggest you look at an EVPN based design instead. This is going to be
Juniper's #1 go to in the future. I believe things like Junos Fusion and
MC-LAG, etc. may still be supported, but secondary to EVPN and associated
features.
What is your planned SD devices? QFX5???
Richard
What kind of experiences (good or bad) have people had with Juniper's
Fusion Provider edge? Are there any limitations I should be aware of?
I'm looking at it to simplify management in a campus network environment
and to use features that are only available on the MX currently.
--
Eldon
--
I
12 matches
Mail list logo
