[j-nsp] Redundancy with MX

[Andre Christian]

Marcus - I am building about 10 PoPs and opted for the dual mx-80 design. Also looked at making the PoPs all layer 2 with a pair of exs. 

Plan to use MC-LAG where applicable.

On Jan 21, 2013, at 3:43 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?
> 
> 
> Best regards,
> Markus
> _______________________________________________
> juniper-nsp mailing list juniper-nsp at puck.nether.net
> https://puck.nether.net/mailman/listinfo/juniper-nsp