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

[Thomas Eichhorn]

Hi,

On MX-Series you do not need any kind of tunnel services,
nor deactivating any port. The LSIs are created on the run,
and there is no limit - I have run a MX960 with 400 VPLS-Instances
(independent, not vlan in a virtual switch) without any matter. Performance
was almost linerate.

Tom


On 28.03.2011 00:53, 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.
>
> Anyone have some insight?
>
> Thanks
>
> Chris
> _______________________________________________
> juniper-nsp mailing list juniper-nsp at puck.nether.net
> https://puck.nether.net/mailman/listinfo/juniper-nsp