[j-nsp] Opinions on the QFX 3500 in regards to linerate L3 performance?

Michel de Nostredame d.nostra at gmail.com
Sat Apr 12 02:59:05 EDT 2014


Just serious. If you have strict budget problem, why not use DELL Force10
S4810?
For L3 line rate inter vlan routing, it works pretty well. Use it as TOR
seems a good and inexpensive solution, plus it has 4x40GE QSFP+ port can be
used as uplink.
On Mar 16, 2014 9:43 AM, "Paul S." <contact at winterei.se> wrote:

> Budget concerns, mostly. The client can apparently source the 3500s for
> rather affordable pricing, while the 5100 is a bit too new to be available
> via those mediums.
>
> On 3/16/2014 午前 01:41, Giuliano Cardozo Medalha wrote:
>
>> why not using qfx5100 platform ?
>>
>> much better low latency 0,6 us and new hardware from juniper
>>
>> Sent from my iPhone
>>
>>  On 15/03/2014, at 13:02, "Paul S." <contact at winterei.se> wrote:
>>>
>>> Hi guys,
>>>
>>> I've got a client who's interested in deploying the 3500 as TORs.
>>>
>>> He'll need to evenly distribute around 20/30g of bandwidth (via
>>> aggregated ethernet links) to multitudes of virtualized systems with
>>> individual vlans all located in singular racks.
>>>
>>> Would the QFX be an okay solution in this scenario? There's an heavy
>>> preference towards Juniper gear due to most of the connected networks being
>>> run on Juniper gear as well.
>>>
>>> And if not, what would the community suggest?
>>>
>>> Thanks.
>>> _______________________________________________
>>> juniper-nsp mailing list juniper-nsp at puck.nether.net
>>> 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


More information about the juniper-nsp mailing list