[j-nsp] EX4550 L2Circuit/VPN to MX80/lt Interface

[👪Karl Brumund - lists]

> On Nov 12, 2014, at 7:34 AM, Michael Hallgren <m.hallgren at free.fr> wrote:
> 
> Le 12/11/2014 12:11, Raphael Mazelier a écrit :
>> 
>> 
>>> Le 11/11/2014 21:08, 👪Karl Brumund - lists a écrit :
>>>> EX (and QFX) have limited MPLS capabilities. The data sheet is
>>>> rather optimistic about the capabilities, and a bit misleading about
>>>> such things as route limits
>>>> Expecting a cheap switch with merchant silicon to do the same as an
>>>> expensive MX with custom ASICs is asking for trouble.
>>>> 
>>>> Seriously, just do L2. Customer port is access, MX80 is trunked.
>>>> You’re just asking for trouble with MPLS and L2VPN.
>>> 
>>> Much of the same opinion, from quite recent exposure.
>>> 
>>> Cheers,
>>> 
>>> mh
>>> 
>> 
>> Agreed on cheaper switch. High end EX series seems a bit different
>> tought. Some big IX (Linx, FranceIX) run with vpls topologies on
>> EX9200 series (with some issues :) ).
> 
> Yep, the higher end ones have richer spec's, right.

They are still limited. Merchant silicon.  Not even close to MX capabilities. Proceed with caution.
We tried using them as full PEs in $previous_job and it was just trouble.
Limited routes, can’t leak connected routes to another RI, and basically dead when J killed the next-gen cards.
Good, fast, cheap. Pick any 2.  And on a bad day, you’re lucky to get one.

> 
>> 
>> Anyway. Redesigning my network at this stage might be challenging.
>> I will try to let this work, and think about a new design in //.
>> 
> 
> I know. Maybe Chip's way?

As Randy Bush said, “I strongly encourage all of my competitors to do the above."

> 
> TTYS,
> mh
> 
>> Thks.
>> 
> 
> 
> 
> _______________________________________________
> juniper-nsp mailing list juniper-nsp at puck.nether.net
> https://puck.nether.net/mailman/listinfo/juniper-nsp