[j-nsp] VPLS scalability question.. OTV answer?
chrisccnpspam2 at gmail.com
Sun Mar 27 20:20:48 EDT 2011
Yes it does take some ports and resources to do this. $ for $ the 7K density
is still much cheaper than MX though.
Anyone know if VPLS will be built into EX8200 or Qfabric (doubtful) in the
On Sun, Mar 27, 2011 at 7:14 PM, Quinn Snyder <snyderq at gmail.com> wrote:
> otv requires a unique vdc (virtual context) to run, plus the desired
> number of interfaces required to interconnect 'edge' with 'lan'
> contexts, as there is no backplane interconnect between contexts. oh,
> and vdc requires the advanced license (~$30k list). maximum number of
> vdc per n7k is 4, as the vdc carves cam, tcam, mem, control-plane, etc
> to each virtual context.
> n7k-lic-adv + n*(sfp-10g + 10gbe interface) != free, especially when
> hardware resources (t/cam) are factored on busy boxen.
> my two bits.
> -= sent via iphone. please excuse spelling, grammar, and brevity =-
> On Mar 27, 2011, at 15:59, Chris Evans <chrisccnpspam2 at gmail.com> wrote:
> > All the communication that we've received from Juniper is that they
> > MPLS and VPLS to be their answer to Cisco's OTV. I've been researching
> > 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
> > interface or a LSI interface on that hardware. The VT interfaces can only
> > obtained by hardware that can do tunnel services, and the LSI interface
> > only on the MX platforms from what I can read.
> > As tunnel PICs have limited performance and LSI interfaces 'steal'
> > 10Gig interfaces on the 10Gig MX blades (I know it won't on the GigE
> > how does Juniper expect to be able to provide high bandwidth VPLS while
> > still providing high port density? The TRIO cards have some inline
> > 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
> > 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
> > 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
More information about the juniper-nsp