[j-nsp] Redundancy with MX

[Eugeniu Patrascu]

On Mon, Jan 21, 2013 at 10:40 PM, Markus H <hauschild.markus at 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 failure
> Con: Using redundant uplinks is more complicated (LB would need to be
> done via routing protocol)
>
> b) 1xMX240/480 with redundant SCB and RE
> Pro: Easier to use redundant uplinks (LACP)
> Con: Config error as well as chassis failure brings the whole PoP down
>
> Any further arguments? Best practices? What did you deploy?
>

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 to the MX80s by 10G ports (2 for IN, 2 for  OUT - in each
MX80) - connected in a MC-LAG to the EX4500 stack. Redundancy all the
way :)
Yes, you would have to play with the routing protocols to balance
traffic at some point if you saturate one of your links in the MX, but
that would only happen if you want to do more than 20G one way.

Cheers,
Eugeniu