[j-nsp] EX4550 or QFX5100 for Core

[Giovanni Bellac]

Hi guys,
thank you for your responses.
Sorry, my first email was not clear enough that I require Base-T (copper) ports.
QFX5110 etc. are looking great on paper, but with copper optics the docs are saying:
###
Caution
Do not place a copper transceiver in an access port directly above or below another copper transceiver. Internal damage to the access ports and switch can occur. For copper transceivers, we recommend either using the top port row exclusively, or the bottom port row exclusively.###
So the options are limited with EX4550-32T and QFX5100-48T...
Kind regardsGiovanni


    Am Dienstag, 7. August 2018, 11:50:33 MESZ hat James Stapley <j.stapley at ru.ac.za> Folgendes geschrieben:  
 
 I've also run 2xEX4600 in a VC for years as a collapsed core/distribution at my last workplace. Didn't use BGP, just OSPF for internal networks (mainly between them and the edge firewall (FGT), as they are single homed - so if you're getting full routes from a peer, I'm not sure how well they will do - the MX10s where I now work do NOT like big changes.... Of course, if the earlier EX series did the job for you, the 4600s should also be fine. 
The EX4600s worked very well in that environment - the syntax seems to be a mish-mash of EX and QFX series command sets, so I often found myself googling the exact syntax expected on EX4600 - I have no real hesitation recommending them. The QSFP slots also seem a nice upgrade potential beyond 10/20 Gb/s backbone. 
On Mon, 6 Aug 2018 at 19:08, Mike Gonnason <gonnason at gmail.com> wrote:

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



-- 
James Stapley
Network Architect
Information & Technology Services, Rhodes University
t: +27 (0) 46 603 8849PO Box 94, Grahamstown, 6140, South Africa
www.ru.ac.za