[j-nsp] juniper qfx5100 vs ex9200

[Phil Bedard]

I think the 9200 actually has less QoS features and less buffers than the 
MX cards, but it depends on which MX cards you have.   The EX9200 
linecards are generally cheaper because it doesn't have the features or 
FIB capacity the MX cards do.    

It's exactly the same chassis/midplane/fabric with a slightly modified 
chipset on the linecards, and the linecards are a different color.   The 
MX does L2, VXLAN, OVSDB, OpenFlow, etc.   There is no reason they 
couldn't have made the same linecards for the MX, but it requires more 
software development to deal with interop versions between cards with 
different resources.   It was kind of a mess with the DPC/MPC, maybe that 
was reason enough to say you couldn't mix and match linecards.    

Phil 

From:  Nitzan Tzelniker <nitzan.tzelniker at gmail.com>
Date:  Wednesday, December 24, 2014 at 1:30 PM
To:  Phil Bedard <philxor at gmail.com>
Cc:  Chuck Anderson <cra at wpi.edu>, Randy Manning 
<rmanning at packetdesign.com>, "juniper-nsp at puck.nether.net" 
<juniper-nsp at puck.nether.net>
Subject:  Re: [j-nsp] juniper qfx5100 vs ex9200

My view

EX9200 has better qos features, larger buffers 100G interfaces , better L2 
features (QinQ,Vlan per port ... ) ,VxLAN routing 
BTW to prevent SP from using the 9200 as P router it doesn't support RSVP  

For most cases QFX will do the job but if you want MX for your DC but 
80/104 is to small and 240 is to expensive the EX9200 is a great box 

Nitzan


On Wed, Dec 24, 2014 at 6:30 PM, Phil Bedard <philxor at gmail.com> wrote:
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
_______________________________________________
juniper-nsp mailing list juniper-nsp at puck.nether.net
https://puck.nether.net/mailman/listinfo/juniper-nsp