On Friday, January 25, 2013 09:46:28 AM Saku Ytti wrote:
Still I'd be afraid that the added complexity bites me
more often than saves me.
I have to agree - I'd rather buy another chassis to solve my
problems than implement logical systems (SDR in the Cisco
world).
I'm also still waiting for
On Friday, February 01, 2013 10:28:13 PM Eugeniu Patrascu
wrote:
I would go with the two MX80s and two L2 switches to
aggregate all connections.
I did a design like this with 2 x MX80 and 2 x EX4500 in
a stack (only L2 aggregation, routing done on the
MX).The switches would be connected
On Mon, Jan 21, 2013 at 10:40 PM, Markus H hauschild.mar...@gmail.com wrote:
Hi,
I wonder what kind of redundancy the community would prefer for
small-medium sized PoPs.
This is what I have come up with so far:
a) 2xMX80
Pro: Two seperate devices so less prone to config errors and chassis
Ouch… I picked a single MX480 chassis design over a dual MX80 because of
the unavailability of the MS-DPC card in the MX80.
We're very new to Juniper here with close to no practical experience.
Nonetheless, we're migrating away from Brocade NetIron MLX to the MX and
we figured that dual RE and
-Original Message-
From: juniper-nsp-boun...@puck.nether.net
[mailto:juniper-nsp-boun...@puck.nether.net] On Behalf Of Stephen Hon
Sent: Friday, 25 January 2013 9:53 AM
To: juniper-nsp@puck.nether.net
Subject: Re: [j-nsp] Redundancy with MX
Ouch... I picked a single MX480 chassis design over
On 1/24/13 2:53 PM, Stephen Hon wrote:
Ouch… I picked a single MX480 chassis design over a dual MX80 because of
the unavailability of the MS-DPC card in the MX80.
yeah that's a consideration if you need an msdpc.
We're very new to Juniper here with close to no practical experience.
Are you looking to do active-standby or active-active mc-lag?
On Mon, Jan 21, 2013 at 3:48 PM, Andre Christian
andre.christ...@o3bnetworks.com wrote:
Marcus - I am building about 10 PoPs and opted for the dual mx-80 design.
Also looked at making the PoPs all layer 2 with a pair of exs.
Plan
On (2013-01-24 17:53 -0500), Stephen Hon wrote:
I'm wondering though, would dividing some of the routing duties into
logical systems help to protect from a massive system-wide problem? From
what I understand the logical systems spin up their own set of processes
and have their own
On 1/21/13 11:44 PM, Saku Ytti wrote:
On (2013-01-21 21:40 +0100), Markus H wrote:
I wonder what kind of redundancy the community would prefer for
small-medium sized PoPs.
a) 2xMX80
b) 1xMX240/480 with redundant SCB and RE
a) no question. As long as you can live with modest RE performance of
Hi,
I wonder what kind of redundancy the community would prefer for
small-medium sized PoPs.
This is what I have come up with so far:
a) 2xMX80
Pro: Two seperate devices so less prone to config errors and chassis failure
Con: Using redundant uplinks is more complicated (LB would need to be
done
Marcus - I am building about 10 PoPs and opted for the dual mx-80 design. Also
looked at making the PoPs all layer 2 with a pair of exs.
Plan to use MC-LAG where applicable.
On Jan 21, 2013, at 3:43 PM, Markus H hauschild.mar...@gmail.com wrote:
Hi,
I wonder what kind of redundancy the
Any constraints? Power? Bandwidth? What's the driver/function?
Thanks.
--
Kind Regards,
Gavin Henry.
Managing Director.
T +44 (0) 1224 279484
M +44 (0) 7930 323266
F +44 (0) 1224 824887
E ghe...@suretec.co.uk
Open Source. Open Solutions(tm).
http://www.suretecsystems.com/
Suretec Systems
On (2013-01-21 21:40 +0100), Markus H wrote:
I wonder what kind of redundancy the community would prefer for
small-medium sized PoPs.
a) 2xMX80
b) 1xMX240/480 with redundant SCB and RE
a) no question. As long as you can live with modest RE performance of MX80.
Routing separated two units
13 matches
Mail list logo
