[j-nsp] QFX5110 / VXLAN

[Mike Gonnason]

Be aware on the QFX5110 that L3 VXLAN is limited, You cannot route vxlan to
vlan:
https://prsearch.juniper.net/InfoCenter/index?page=prcontent&id=PR1318178



On Wed, Jul 4, 2018 at 3:51 PM Brant Ian Stevens <
branto at argentiumsolutions.com> wrote:

> And now there's the announcement of the QFX5120 and EX4650 to the mix.
> Those are Trident-3 based, if I am not mistaken.  Boxes look great on
> paper...
>
> --
> Regards,
> --
> Brant I. Stevens, Principal & Consulting Architect
> branto at argentiumsolutions.com
> d:212.931.8566, x101 <(212)%20931-8566>. m:917.673.6536 <(917)%20673-6536>.
> f:917.525.4759 <(917)%20525-4759>.
> http://argentiumsolutions.com
>
> On 7/4/18 5:03 PM, Scott Harvanek wrote:
> > Cost is a factor I don’t think I can get anyone to bite on something
> bigger either as the application is solely VXLAN in a compact form factor.
> >
> > -Scott H
> >
> >> On Jul 4, 2018, at 2:20 PM, Pavel Lunin <plunin at gmail.com> wrote:
> >>
> >> Btw, it's a very good question if anyone here has more or less close to
> real-world experience with L3 gw and evpn type 5 routes on QFX5110 or maybe
> any other trident 2+ based box.
> >>
> >> Would much appreciate your input.
> >>
> >> Regards,
> >> Pavel
> >>
> >> July 3, 2018, 18:48 Roger Wiklund <roger.wiklund at gmail.com>:
> >>> Hi Scott
> >>>
> >>> Should be fine as L2 GW. L3 GW and Route Type 5 support is quite
> recent.
> >>>
> >>> Beefier alternatives are QFX10002, or MX204 if you want to go MX route
> with
> >>> fewer ports. Both have custom ASICs with higher scale, and higher
> chance to
> >>> overcome caveats/limitations especially tied to chipset limitation.
> >>>
> >>> Regards
> >>> Roger
> >>>
> >>> On Tue, Jul 3, 2018 at 1:48 PM, Scott Harvanek <
> scott.harvanek at login.com>
> >>> wrote:
> >>>
> >>>> Is anyone on here running 5110s for VXLAN/VTEP/EVPN and run into any
> >>>> issues?  I’ve gone over the caveats list Juniper has for these in
> regards
> >>>> to what they won’t do in regards to VXLAN and it seems like they meet
> our
> >>>> needs… just curious if anyone has run into any lesser documented
> issues
> >>>> with them.
> >>>>
> >>>> I’m looking at the list here; https://www.juniper.net/
> >>>>
> documentation/en_US/junos/topics/concept/vxlan-constraints-qfx-series.html
> >>>> <
> https://www.juniper.net/documentation/en_US/junos/topics/concept/vxlan-
> >>>> constraints-qfx-series.html>
> >>>>
> >>>> Is there a better device for VXLAN on the juniper side? We’re looking
> for
> >>>> something comparable to the Nexus 9372 on the Cisco side.
> >>>>
> >>>> Cheers!
> >>>>
> >>>> Scott H
> >>>>
> >>>>
> >>>>
> >>>> _______________________________________________
> >>>> juniper-nsp mailing list juniper-nsp at puck.nether.net
> >>>> https://puck.nether.net/mailman/listinfo/juniper-nsp
> >>>>
> >>> _______________________________________________
> >>> juniper-nsp mailing list juniper-nsp at puck.nether.net
> >>> https://puck.nether.net/mailman/listinfo/juniper-nsp
> > _______________________________________________
> > juniper-nsp mailing list juniper-nsp at puck.nether.net
> > https://puck.nether.net/mailman/listinfo/juniper-nsp
> _______________________________________________
> juniper-nsp mailing list juniper-nsp at puck.nether.net
> https://puck.nether.net/mailman/listinfo/juniper-nsp
>