[j-nsp] EX4550 or QFX5100 for Core

[Mike Gonnason]

Have you considered EX4600?

It is like a QFX5100 but with less feature support. I have 2x in an MC-LAG
which has been great, but it supports Virtual Chassis too.

On Fri, Aug 3, 2018 at 7:44 AM Giovanni Bellac via juniper-nsp <
juniper-nsp at puck.nether.net> wrote:

> Hi all,
>
> we have migrated our core (8-10x Racks, BGP default route, LACP to the
> ToR, VLAN, L3, nothing fancy) to a VC of 2x 4200-24T with 12.3R12-S9.
> 12.3R12-Sx is a recommend version for EX4200. We have had a kernel panic
> (no JTAC) and I am not confident with this old setup anymore.
>
> Our older stack of 2x 4200-24T with 12.3R6.6 has done its job for years
> without any problems.
>
> (PS: We have first migrated to 15.1R7-S1 on the new VC - it was terribly
> buggy - Guys, 15.1 is a JTAC recommend version... I have the feeling and of
> course reading the mailinglists that Juniper has no inhouse testing anymore
> ? Note to me: RTFM(ailinglist) first.)
>
> So, we want something new with JTAC support. We need (1/10G)-Base-T, VLAN,
> L3, nothing fancy, but stable. We have 3k ARP entries.
>
> Option 1) 2x EX4550
>
> Option 2) 2x QFX5100
>
> We want to keep simplicity in and therefore want to use VC. We are pushing
> some Gbit/s from Rack-to-Rack (backups) and to our two upstreams around
> 500-600Mbit/s.
> QFX5100 hardware seems to be MUCH better than EX4550 hardware. The ARP
> table size, hash table size etc. on EX4550 is relatively small.
> I have read (mailinglists, reddit) that VC is not a good idea on QFX5100
> (bugs, bugs, bugs).
>
> Can somebody with these devices in the network can give me some up to date
> insights?
>
> Thanks in advance!
>
> Kind regards,
> Giovanni
> _______________________________________________
> juniper-nsp mailing list juniper-nsp at puck.nether.net
> https://puck.nether.net/mailman/listinfo/juniper-nsp
>