[j-nsp] Advice on a 100Gbps+ environment

[Richard Hesse]

Arista is still the best deal around when it comes to very high speed, high
density ethernet.

In some deployments, it's the only possible choice. Juniper doesn't have a
great product offering at ToR and even access layer/core routing when you
start talking 40 gig ports.



On Tue, Jul 2, 2013 at 11:00 AM, Morgan McLean <wrx230 at gmail.com> wrote:

> Wow, this thread snowballed into quite the MX80 debate. For the record, I
> run two in production where I am employed full time and they perform
> beautifully, though woefully underutilized.
>
> Using static routes and /32's as peering endpoints is a great option I
> skimmed over, I'll see if the upstream can do this...they should.
>
> Unfortunately, the customer signed the contract for bandwidth with
> inteliquent; we have existing 10G with telia and 10G with cogent along with
> a couple existing 10G from inteliquent, but I'm not sure if they'll stay.
> So I didn't really have much say...I think the price point was more
> important than the benefits of signing to a few carriers. In short, I'm
> working on that.
>
> This traffic should be mostly web.
>
> Sorry, I meant to say OSPF and ECMP. I would like to be able to run the
> VRRP at the end of row and extend L3 as far as I can, but I guess the
> customer wants to be able to spread machines in the same environments among
> multiple rows, which is understandable, but that means I need to run L2
> from distribution to access. Each row needs 100gbps useable, so I suppose 4
> x 40GBE LAGs would do the trick nicely. If my client doesn't want to spend
> the money in that area...
>
> Any good aggregation switch suggestions? Juniper is doesn't provide good
> ports for $ in the switching realm....customer balked at the cost for a
> four port 40G blade on a 9200. Might check out brocade..
>
> Thanks,
> Morgan
>
>
> On Tue, Jul 2, 2013 at 8:13 AM, Christian de Balorre <
> cdebalorre at neotelecoms.com> wrote:
>
> > Slow control-plane. No RE redundancy. More limited rib & fib than regular
> > MX. Cryptic licensing scheme.
> > Otherwise nothing really wrong.
> >
> > Christian
> >
> > Le 02/07/2013 15:55, Drew Weaver a écrit :
> >
> >  And what is wrong with the MX80 as a peering/transit router for up to
> >> 80Gbps of traffic?
> >>
> >> Thanks,
> >> -Drew
> >>
> >>
> >> -----Original Message-----
> >> From: juniper-nsp [mailto:juniper-nsp-bounces@**puck.nether.net<
> juniper-nsp-bounces at puck.nether.net>]
> >> On Behalf Of Dobbins, Roland
> >> Sent: Tuesday, July 02, 2013 9:01 AM
> >> To: juniper-nsp Puck
> >> Subject: Re: [j-nsp] Advice on a 100Gbps+ environment
> >>
> >>
> >> On Jul 2, 2013, at 7:19 PM, Mark Tinka wrote:
> >>
> >>  Says who?
> >>>
> >> Doh - MX*480*, not MX*80*.  My mistake.
> >>
> >> ------------------------------**------------------------------**
> >> -----------
> >> Roland Dobbins <rdobbins at arbor.net> // <http://www.arbornetworks.com>
> >>
> >>           Luck is the residue of opportunity and design.
> >>
> >>                        -- John Milton
> >>
> >>
> >> ______________________________**_________________
> >> juniper-nsp mailing list juniper-nsp at puck.nether.net
> >> https://puck.nether.net/**mailman/listinfo/juniper-nsp<
> https://puck.nether.net/mailman/listinfo/juniper-nsp>
> >>
> >> ______________________________**_________________
> >> juniper-nsp mailing list juniper-nsp at puck.nether.net
> >> https://puck.nether.net/**mailman/listinfo/juniper-nsp<
> https://puck.nether.net/mailman/listinfo/juniper-nsp>
> >>
> >
> > ______________________________**_________________
> > juniper-nsp mailing list juniper-nsp at puck.nether.net
> > https://puck.nether.net/**mailman/listinfo/juniper-nsp<
> https://puck.nether.net/mailman/listinfo/juniper-nsp>
> >
>
>
>
> --
> Thanks,
> Morgan
> _______________________________________________
> juniper-nsp mailing list juniper-nsp at puck.nether.net
> https://puck.nether.net/mailman/listinfo/juniper-nsp
>