[j-nsp] Redundancy with MX

[Mark Tinka]

On Friday, February 01, 2013 10:28:13 PM Eugeniu Patrascu 
wrote:

> 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.

The above is a reasonable design.

We structure ours based on small, medium or large edge 
sites, where it doesn't yet make sense to launch a full PoP 
with core routers, route reflectors, e.t.c.

This would typically be a new PoP where we're going in on 
the back of a handful of customers, but not big enough yet 
to use as a transit PoP for major traffic flow in the global 
scheme of things.

My main issue with the MX80 is low 10Gbps density, if the 
box is a collapsed P/PE device, handling both customers as 
well as core traffic. In such cases, provided there is 
space, the MX480 has been considered from the Juniper side. 
Cisco ends up providing more flexibility with their ASR1006 
platform, which can then later be scaled to an ASR9000 for a 
large edge PoP, pre-full PoP design.

It really depends on:

	- How small or large you expect your PoP to be.
	- How much you plan to make in sales.
	- How many core links come in.
	- How fast those core links will be.

Mark.
-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: signature.asc
Type: application/pgp-signature
Size: 836 bytes
Desc: This is a digitally signed message part.
URL: <https://puck.nether.net/pipermail/juniper-nsp/attachments/20130331/9f156775/attachment.sig>