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

[Julien Goodwin]

The short answer is:
http://www.juniper.net/techpubs/software/junos/junos92/swconfig-vpns/configuring-vpls-without-a-tunnel-services-pic.html

This is meant to just need recent-ish pic's facing the MPLS cloud.

On 28/03/11 09:53, Chris Evans wrote:
> 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.

-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: signature.asc
Type: application/pgp-signature
Size: 262 bytes
Desc: OpenPGP digital signature
URL: <https://puck.nether.net/pipermail/juniper-nsp/attachments/20110328/a7bea4a5/attachment.pgp>