[j-nsp] juniper qfx5100 vs ex9200

[Phil Bedard]

I believe the QFX5100 will support EVPN, but using VXLAN as the underlying forwarding mechanism instead of MPLS.  So technically the "P" boxes in the middle just need to do IP routing and not MPLS.

TBH I never understood the 9200, it reminds me of the 6500/7600 split except it's the 9200/MX. 

Phil

-----Original Message-----
From: "Chuck Anderson" <cra at WPI.EDU>
Sent: ‎12/‎24/‎2014 10:08 AM
To: "Randy Manning" <rmanning at packetdesign.com>
Cc: "juniper-nsp at puck.nether.net" <juniper-nsp at puck.nether.net>
Subject: Re: [j-nsp] juniper qfx5100 vs ex9200

EX9200 has more potential to support more MPLS features as a PE, like
EVPN.  QFX5100 is a nice box, but won't do much MPLS (L3VPN, but no
L2VPN, VPLS or EVPN).  See the Feature Explorer:

http://pathfinder.juniper.net/feature-explorer/search-features.html

Interestingly, EX9200 isn't shown as having L3VPN support.  You need
to take the Feature Explorer with a grain of salt.  If you look up
"BGP for L2VPNs and L3VPNs" for example, it only shows PTX support for
that feature, but of course MX supports that too.

On Wed, Dec 24, 2014 at 03:55:30AM +0000, Randy Manning wrote:
> People,
> 
> Any advice on a distribution layer switch for campus networks?  juniper
> qfx5100 vs ex9200?  I am not sure what the requirements need to be a
> priority.  The core is MX 960 and currently routing.  I am thinking about
> campus distro¹s becoming PE with TE and allowing the core¹s to label
> switch only?  Given the current network and possible change, which
> platform is the best?  Qfx or ex?
> 
> Data centers are working well with q-fabric, but I understand that has
> been abandoned by juniperŠ. Which is sadŠ I liked the eVPN BGP NLRI design.
> 
> 
> Thanks,
> -----
> Randy
_______________________________________________
juniper-nsp mailing list juniper-nsp at puck.nether.net
https://puck.nether.net/mailman/listinfo/juniper-nsp