[j-nsp] VPLS scalability question.. OTV answer?

[Chris Evans]

>From what I can tell you have to enable tunnel services on the MX module
itself still. If someone can advise whether it does or not that would help
clear up things.. 10Gig ports on MX's on non TRIO modules are at a premium.
The Trio module alone is very expensive too. I wouldn't want to lose ports
to enable services such as this.

Anyone can comment?

On Sun, Mar 27, 2011 at 7:07 PM, Derick Winkworth <dwinkworth at att.net>wrote:

> Do you have a link for documentation about the 10G interfaces?  I was under
> the
> impression you weren't really "stealing" a 10G interface.. if you enable
> tunnel
> services on a 10G interface then you lose an interface, but with
> no-tunnel-services I thought you didn't need to do that...
>
>
>
> ________________________________
> From: Chris Evans <chrisccnpspam2 at gmail.com>
> To: juniper-nsp at puck.nether.net
> Sent: Sun, March 27, 2011 5:53:14 PM
> Subject: [j-nsp] VPLS scalability question.. OTV answer?
>
> All the communication that we've received from Juniper is that they
> perceive
> MPLS and VPLS to be their answer to Cisco's OTV. I've been researching VPLS
> on the Juniper platforms and I cannot find any definite information as to
> how much it can scale performance/bandwidth wise. VPLS requires either a VT
> interface or a LSI interface on that hardware. The VT interfaces can only
> be
> obtained by hardware that can do tunnel services, and the LSI interface is
> only on the MX platforms from what I can read.
>
> As tunnel PICs have limited performance and LSI interfaces 'steal' physical
> 10Gig interfaces on the 10Gig MX blades (I know it won't on the GigE
> blades)
> how does Juniper expect to be able to provide high bandwidth VPLS while
> still providing high port density? The TRIO cards have some inline
> services,
> but does they offer these services? It seems like Juniper is expecting to
> throw another half baked solution out there to compete with Cisco and I'm
> not sure how they're going to scale the infrastructure. The Cisco solution
> uses the built in ASIC hardware to do this and do not require ports to be
> stolen, etc.. It really bothers me that you have to lose interfaces and/or
> install special hardware to do inline services, which only increases the
> cost of the platforms drastically.
>
> Anyone have some insight?
>
> Thanks
>
> Chris
> _______________________________________________
> juniper-nsp mailing list juniper-nsp at puck.nether.net
> https://puck.nether.net/mailman/listinfo/juniper-nsp
> _______________________________________________
> juniper-nsp mailing list juniper-nsp at puck.nether.net
> https://puck.nether.net/mailman/listinfo/juniper-nsp
>