[j-nsp] Using a QFX5100 without QFabric?

[Aaron Gould]

I let someone else worry about dollars… but sounds like you have a point

 

You can do mpls l2circuit (martini) in a qfx ?  I was under the impression the qfx did no mpls at all.

 

-Aaron

 

From: Joe Freeman [mailto:joe at netbyjoe.com] 
Sent: Tuesday, October 24, 2017 1:21 PM
To: Aaron Gould
Cc: mlfreita at mtu.edu; Karl Gerhard; Juniper List
Subject: Re: [j-nsp] Using a QFX5100 without QFabric?

 

How do you handle 10G port licensing on the 5048? That gets expensive quickly. I've got about 75 qfx's deployed as PE devices right now because of the 5048 port licenses.

 

The major limitation of the qfx as a PE device is that it doesn't support VPLS. It does however do EVPN over vxlan, which can be stitched to a vpls instance if needed on an MX, at least according to Juniper. I've not yet tried it.

 

On the very few instances where I've absolutely had to deliver a VPLS type service, I've been able to bring L2circuits back to a 480 and stitch them all to a bridge-domain there. Not optimal, but it works.

 

Joe

 

The qfx's do L3vpn and l2circuits nicely, with RSVP/LDP, BGP, and ISIS.

 

On Tue, Oct 24, 2017 at 9:44 AM, Aaron Gould <aaron1 at gvtc.com> wrote:

Not to change subject too much, but, In case you are wanting to extend your
mpls cloud (I'm assuming your MX core is mpls-enabled) further out into the
aggregation/access edge, you could go with the qfx-5100 cousin... acx5048.
I've been pretty pleased with them.

I've deployed 30 or 40 of these now in my network with as cisco asr9k core.

-Aaron


_______________________________________________
juniper-nsp mailing list juniper-nsp at puck.nether.net
https://puck.nether.net/mailman/listinfo/juniper-nsp