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

[Paul S.]

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