[j-nsp] Opinions on fusion provider edge

[James Bensley]

On 8 November 2018 14:23:02 GMT, Tarko Tikan <tarko at lanparty.ee> wrote:
>hey,
>
>> There is
>> nothing wrong with layer 2 aggregation switches in my opinion, the
>> only technical advantage in my opinion to using SP Fusion for a layer
>> 1 extension to a router compared to a layer 2 switch is that SP
>Fusion
>> is one device to configure and monitor instead of two.
>
>Except that it's not L1. It's still L2 with 802.1BR (or vendor 
>proprietary version of that).

Yep, Juniper told us at the time that Fusion was based on open standards (802.1BR) and not proprietary in any way. Funny how they don't support the use of any other 802.1BR complaint device and, I doubt it would work. They must have some property gubbins in there like pushing the Fusion firmware blob from the aggregation device to the satellite device. If the Fusion firmware wasn't on the QFX the MX and QFX wouldn't "bond". Not sure how the MX detects that (LLDP?) - I had a (albeit quick) look at the standard back then and couldn't seen anything related, so I presume an MX AD would reject a random 802.1 BR compatible device.

>You highlight the exact reasons why one should stay away from 
>fusion/fex/satellite - features must explicitly be 
>ported/accommodated/tested for them. Not all performance data is 
>available, OAM/CFM is a struggle etc.

Agreed.

Cheers,
James.