[j-nsp] [SPF:Passed] Re: EX4600 Vs QFX 5100 VS ACX 5048

[Aaron]

YW Raphael, I've tested and am still testing a lot of vpls with ACX5048...
what would you like to know ?  I'll try to help where I can

BTW, I'm motivated and required to figure out as much as I can on the
ACX5048... my boss just bought 14 of them !  (they have all 14 arrived in my
warehouse downstairs)  ...we've already deployed 2 in our live network.  One
is solely burning in as a P right now, forwarding nicely about ~2 gbps worth
of subscriber internet traffic just fine.  We will be moving over some gear
to it soon so it will soon become a PE for mpls l2vpn's and l3vpn's.  ...so
I gotta be comfortable with lots of this stuff before I go live (more live
than it already is  :)  

Regarding VPLS on ACX....I've tested ...

VPLS - BGP AD w/BGP Sig (I think known as rfc4761)
VPLS - BGP AD w/LDP Sig (I think known as rfc4762) - this is how my
pre-existing cisco gear defaults...so I will need to introduce juniper gear
into my cisco network as vpls bg ad w/ldp sig

These tests were done with pretty much all of the following signaling
lsp/pw's to one another ... 

Cisco ASR9K
Cisco ASR920 (2 flavors as I recall)
Cisco ASR903
Cisco ME3600
Juniper MX104
Juniper ACX5048

- I try to keep good notes on my findings during testing so please let me
know what you need and I'll try to dig it up, or recall it from memory

- Aaron




-----Original Message-----
From: raf [mailto:raph at futomaki.net] 
Sent: Wednesday, May 4, 2016 4:05 AM
To: Aaron <aaron1 at gvtc.com>; juniper-nsp at puck.nether.net
Subject: Re: [j-nsp] [SPF:Passed] Re: EX4600 Vs QFX 5100 VS ACX 5048

Thanks aaron for the reply.

Vpls don't work on EX4550, the stanza does not even exist.
I'm interested in the result of  your test on acx.
Stanzas exists good starting point.
Do you test further ?

Regards,

Le 03/05/2016 à 22:00, Aaron a écrit :
> Raphael , I had issues last year when trying to test VPLS on 
> EX4550...i don't recall that it worked
>
> In my lab I see the following... seems like the EX4550 is less capable 
> in its routing-instance types when compared to the ACX5048
>
> **** ACX5048
>
> agould at eng-lab-5048-1> show version
> fpc0:
> ----------------------------------------------------------------------
> ----
> Hostname: eng-lab-5048-1
> Model: acx5048
> Junos: 15.1X54-D20.7
> ...
>
> agould at eng-lab-5048-1# set routing-instances test instance-type ?
>
> Possible completions:
>
>    evpn                 EVPN routing instance
>
>    forwarding           Forwarding instance
>
>    l2backhaul-vpn       L2Backhaul/L2Wholesale routing instance
>
>    l2vpn                Layer 2 VPN routing instance
>
>    mpls-internet-multicast  Internet Multicast over MPLS routing 
> instance
>
>    no-forwarding        Nonforwarding instance
>
>    virtual-router       Virtual routing instance
>
>    vpls                 VPLS routing instance
>
>    vrf                  Virtual routing forwarding instance
>
>
> **** EX4550
>
> gvtc at eng-lab-ex4550-1# run show version
> fpc0:
> ----------------------------------------------------------------------
> ----
> Hostname: eng-lab-ex4550-1
> Model: ex4550-32f
> JUNOS Base OS boot [12.2R1.9]
> ...
>
> gvtc at eng-lab-ex4550-1# set routing-instances test instance-type ?
>
> Possible completions:
>
>    forwarding           Forwarding instance
>
>    l2vpn                Layer 2 VPN routing instance
>
>    mpls-internet-multicast  Internet Multicast over MPLS routing 
> instance
>
>    no-forwarding        Nonforwarding instance
>
>    virtual-router       Virtual routing instance
>
>    vrf                  Virtual routing forwarding instance
>
>
> -Aaron
>
>
>