[j-nsp] Limit on interfaces in bundle

[joel jaeggli]

On 10/29/15 5:57 AM, Edward Dore wrote:
> On 29 Oct 2015, at 12:49, Mark Tinka <mark.tinka at seacom.mu> wrote:
> 
>>
>>
>> On 29/Oct/15 14:22, Cydon Satyr wrote:
>>
>>> Oh wow.
>>>
>>> Any real drawbacks to running something like 32x10Gbps LAG link in core
>>> instead of higher bandwidth physical links? Just seems so unreal.
>>
>> Folk like AMS-IX have publicly acknowledged running 32x 10Gbps on their
>> exchange point (albeit, with Brocade) right before 100Gbps ports became
>> viable.
>>
>> I suppose the biggest issue will be how you hash equally across all of
>> the links, especially if much of the traffic being carried is inherently
>> Layer 2 (despite having a Layer 3 payload).
>>
>> Mark.
>> _______________________________________________
>> juniper-nsp mailing list juniper-nsp at puck.nether.net
>> https://puck.nether.net/mailman/listinfo/juniper-nsp
> 
> I believe LINX were using 64x10G LAGs between the core nodes on the Juniper LAN in London before the upgrade to use smaller 100G bundles.
> 
> I guess the biggest benefit of using 100G interfaces instead of 10x10G is that you can support individual flows >10G.

a  reduction in fiber count or waves utilized is non-trivial given you
go from 20 fibers to 8 or 2.

> Edward Dore
> Freethought Internet
> 
> 
> 
> _______________________________________________
> juniper-nsp mailing list juniper-nsp at puck.nether.net
> https://puck.nether.net/mailman/listinfo/juniper-nsp
> 


-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: signature.asc
Type: application/pgp-signature
Size: 229 bytes
Desc: OpenPGP digital signature
URL: <https://puck.nether.net/pipermail/juniper-nsp/attachments/20151029/45486130/attachment.sig>