Mailing List Archive

The ACX has many more MPLS and CE features compared to the QFX.


On Apr 29, 2016, at 11:35 AM, Colton Conor <colton.conor@gmail.com> wrote:

Besides port count and expansion modules, what is the main differences
between these three Juniper switches (actually Juniper has the ACX under
their router section on their website). I believe all three use Broadcom
Trident II chips.

This Juniper doc says:

Even though QFX5100 and EX4600 Switches use the same chipset, MPLS support
differs.EX4600 switches support only basic MPLS functionality while QFX5100
switches support some of the more advanced features. See “MPLS Feature
Support on QFX Series and EX4600 Switches” on page 17 for details.
http://www.juniper.net/techpubs/en_US/junos14.1/information-products/pathway-pages/ex4600/mpls.pdf

The ACX seems interesting. I know it is MEF 2.0 certified while the other
two are not. Besided MEF certification I would like to know how it differs
from the QFX5100 as the port count is identical.

Does anyone have experience with these three platforms?
_______________________________________________
juniper-nsp mailing list juniper-nsp@puck.nether.net
https://puck.nether.net/mailman/listinfo/juniper-nsp

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

I recently purchased several ACX5048's and am testing and deploying them as
we speak...all in all, I'm pleased thus far. This is pretty much my first
experience with Juniper/MPLS devices.

I got a working scenario as of yesterday of EVPLAN (MEF-speak for ELAN with
tagging on PE-CE handoff)...(basically VPLS Routing Instance with BGP AD and
LDP Sig) the JTAC was helpful in understanding the PE-CE Junos Ethernet tag
push/pop I needed. This is interoperating with IOS XR (asr9k) and Classic
IOS (ME3600). One glitch was noticed but it might be a subtlety during
service activation/change, but was also only seen on the 9k XR side as a
down'd psuedowire... (j)tac cases are in the works to understand why that
occurred. Other than that acx5048, me3600, asr9k are working in a RFC4762
VPLS scenario.

I will say that JTAC did not know how to do this right away... it took them
a day or more to figure it out. JTAC said that this ACX5048 platform is
fairly new and they are learning it as well. (this was the person I talked
to anyway)

I have a working scenario with MPLS L3VPN on the ACX5048 also... inet-vpn...
this is also interop'ing just fine with ME3600 and ASR9k...

I did a brief test with ELINE (mef speak for p-to-p pw) and seemed ok

I have a few more things I need to test, but at this point I've been pleased
with the ACX5048.

I love the (48) 10 gig interfaces (6) 40 gig in a 1U size !

- Aaron

-----Original Message-----
From: juniper-nsp [mailto:juniper-nsp-bounces@puck.nether.net] On Behalf Of
Jerry Jones
Sent: Friday, April 29, 2016 1:07 PM
To: Colton Conor <colton.conor@gmail.com>
Cc: Juniper List <juniper-nsp@puck.nether.net>
Subject: Re: [j-nsp] EX4600 Vs QFX 5100 VS ACX 5048

The ACX has many more MPLS and CE features compared to the QFX.


On Apr 29, 2016, at 11:35 AM, Colton Conor <colton.conor@gmail.com> wrote:

Besides port count and expansion modules, what is the main differences
between these three Juniper switches (actually Juniper has the ACX under
their router section on their website). I believe all three use Broadcom
Trident II chips.

This Juniper doc says:

Even though QFX5100 and EX4600 Switches use the same chipset, MPLS support
differs.EX4600 switches support only basic MPLS functionality while QFX5100
switches support some of the more advanced features. See "MPLS Feature
Support on QFX Series and EX4600 Switches" on page 17 for details.
http://www.juniper.net/techpubs/en_US/junos14.1/information-products/pathway
-pages/ex4600/mpls.pdf

The ACX seems interesting. I know it is MEF 2.0 certified while the other
two are not. Besided MEF certification I would like to know how it differs
from the QFX5100 as the port count is identical.

Does anyone have experience with these three platforms?
_______________________________________________
juniper-nsp mailing list juniper-nsp@puck.nether.net
https://puck.nether.net/mailman/listinfo/juniper-nsp

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

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

Aaron,

Thanks for the information and real world examples. Great to hear you got
Cisco and Juniper to work together as well. Sounds like you had Cisco in
your network today, and are adding Juniper. What was the business case or
reason for this? Is it because Cisco does not have a similar MEF 10G 1U
box? If they do I am not aware what model it is. Most are recommending an
ASR920, but that only has like 4 10G interfaces.

On Fri, Apr 29, 2016 at 3:06 PM, Aaron <aaron1@gvtc.com> wrote:

> I recently purchased several ACX5048's and am testing and deploying them as
> we speak...all in all, I'm pleased thus far. This is pretty much my first
> experience with Juniper/MPLS devices.
>
> I got a working scenario as of yesterday of EVPLAN (MEF-speak for ELAN with
> tagging on PE-CE handoff)...(basically VPLS Routing Instance with BGP AD
> and
> LDP Sig) the JTAC was helpful in understanding the PE-CE Junos Ethernet tag
> push/pop I needed. This is interoperating with IOS XR (asr9k) and Classic
> IOS (ME3600). One glitch was noticed but it might be a subtlety during
> service activation/change, but was also only seen on the 9k XR side as a
> down'd psuedowire... (j)tac cases are in the works to understand why that
> occurred. Other than that acx5048, me3600, asr9k are working in a RFC4762
> VPLS scenario.
>
> I will say that JTAC did not know how to do this right away... it took them
> a day or more to figure it out. JTAC said that this ACX5048 platform is
> fairly new and they are learning it as well. (this was the person I talked
> to anyway)
>
> I have a working scenario with MPLS L3VPN on the ACX5048 also...
> inet-vpn...
> this is also interop'ing just fine with ME3600 and ASR9k...
>
> I did a brief test with ELINE (mef speak for p-to-p pw) and seemed ok
>
> I have a few more things I need to test, but at this point I've been
> pleased
> with the ACX5048.
>
> I love the (48) 10 gig interfaces (6) 40 gig in a 1U size !
>
> - Aaron
>
> -----Original Message-----
> From: juniper-nsp [mailto:juniper-nsp-bounces@puck.nether.net] On Behalf
> Of
> Jerry Jones
> Sent: Friday, April 29, 2016 1:07 PM
> To: Colton Conor <colton.conor@gmail.com>
> Cc: Juniper List <juniper-nsp@puck.nether.net>
> Subject: Re: [j-nsp] EX4600 Vs QFX 5100 VS ACX 5048
>
> The ACX has many more MPLS and CE features compared to the QFX.
>
>
> On Apr 29, 2016, at 11:35 AM, Colton Conor <colton.conor@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> Besides port count and expansion modules, what is the main differences
> between these three Juniper switches (actually Juniper has the ACX under
> their router section on their website). I believe all three use Broadcom
> Trident II chips.
>
> This Juniper doc says:
>
> Even though QFX5100 and EX4600 Switches use the same chipset, MPLS support
> differs.EX4600 switches support only basic MPLS functionality while QFX5100
> switches support some of the more advanced features. See "MPLS Feature
> Support on QFX Series and EX4600 Switches" on page 17 for details.
>
> http://www.juniper.net/techpubs/en_US/junos14.1/information-products/pathway
> -pages/ex4600/mpls.pdf
>
> The ACX seems interesting. I know it is MEF 2.0 certified while the other
> two are not. Besided MEF certification I would like to know how it differs
> from the QFX5100 as the port count is identical.
>
> Does anyone have experience with these three platforms?
> _______________________________________________
> juniper-nsp mailing list juniper-nsp@puck.nether.net
> https://puck.nether.net/mailman/listinfo/juniper-nsp
>
> _______________________________________________
> juniper-nsp mailing list juniper-nsp@puck.nether.net
> https://puck.nether.net/mailman/listinfo/juniper-nsp
>
>
_______________________________________________
juniper-nsp mailing list juniper-nsp@puck.nether.net
https://puck.nether.net/mailman/listinfo/juniper-nsp

Yw Colton



Yes we are mostly cisco as we deployed an mpls network a few years back with asr9k core and me3600 distribution… asr901 at cell sites…



Yes Colton cisco has 1U box, more about that below… NCS5K



Agreed Colton the ASR920 tops out at too few 10 gig interfaces to be considered for my eval



Business case ? perhaps the primary driving factor was in our ftth broadband network where we are selling tons of bw to our subs….those calix e7 olt’s have dual 10 gig uplinks and will have more in the future… to keep up with the pace of BW consumption we needed more 10 gig interfaces in the distribution layer of our network… the current device there was Cisco’s ME3600 with only (2) 10 gig (4 on the CX model)



We determined that we wanted (8) or more 10 gigs in an mpls capable box similar in size/function as the cisco me3600 that we widely deployed…



We had deployed the ME3600 with MPLS L2VPN and L3VPN so we needed a box that could do that also. We also deployed MEF-style eline, elan, etree services within the me3600’s and asr9k’s so I needed a box that could do that also. (aka, vpls, vpws, bgp-ad w/ldp-sig auto-vpls)…also deployed was mpls l3vpn vrf for ipv4 (aka vpnv4, inet-vpn) and with plans to go to 6VPE (aka mpls l3vpn w/ipv6 support)… so yeah, I needed all that…



we ruled out the cisco asr920 was it tops out with (6) 10 gig



we ruled out the cisco ncs5k as it was problematic in its infancy. I was attracted to this box with (~40) 10 gig and (4) 100 gig, but the problems were to great (bad issues with l3vpn and l2vpn) and some things just weren’t even there yet.



We ruled out cisco asr903 and juniper mx104 style modular/larger boxes as me3600 replacements since they were bigger… and not quite what we were looking for…



We liked and settled on the juniper acx5048…



Hope that helps…



- Aaron





From: Colton Conor [mailto:colton.conor@gmail.com]
Sent: Friday, April 29, 2016 3:29 PM
To: Aaron <aaron1@gvtc.com>
Cc: Jerry Jones <jjones@danrj.com>; Juniper List <juniper-nsp@puck.nether.net>
Subject: Re: [j-nsp] EX4600 Vs QFX 5100 VS ACX 5048



Aaron,


Thanks for the information and real world examples. Great to hear you got Cisco and Juniper to work together as well. Sounds like you had Cisco in your network today, and are adding Juniper. What was the business case or reason for this? Is it because Cisco does not have a similar MEF 10G 1U box? If they do I am not aware what model it is. Most are recommending an ASR920, but that only has like 4 10G interfaces.



On Fri, Apr 29, 2016 at 3:06 PM, Aaron <aaron1@gvtc.com <mailto:aaron1@gvtc.com> > wrote:

I recently purchased several ACX5048's and am testing and deploying them as
we speak...all in all, I'm pleased thus far. This is pretty much my first
experience with Juniper/MPLS devices.

I got a working scenario as of yesterday of EVPLAN (MEF-speak for ELAN with
tagging on PE-CE handoff)...(basically VPLS Routing Instance with BGP AD and
LDP Sig) the JTAC was helpful in understanding the PE-CE Junos Ethernet tag
push/pop I needed. This is interoperating with IOS XR (asr9k) and Classic
IOS (ME3600). One glitch was noticed but it might be a subtlety during
service activation/change, but was also only seen on the 9k XR side as a
down'd psuedowire... (j)tac cases are in the works to understand why that
occurred. Other than that acx5048, me3600, asr9k are working in a RFC4762
VPLS scenario.

I will say that JTAC did not know how to do this right away... it took them
a day or more to figure it out. JTAC said that this ACX5048 platform is
fairly new and they are learning it as well. (this was the person I talked
to anyway)

I have a working scenario with MPLS L3VPN on the ACX5048 also... inet-vpn...
this is also interop'ing just fine with ME3600 and ASR9k...

I did a brief test with ELINE (mef speak for p-to-p pw) and seemed ok

I have a few more things I need to test, but at this point I've been pleased
with the ACX5048.

I love the (48) 10 gig interfaces (6) 40 gig in a 1U size !

- Aaron


-----Original Message-----
From: juniper-nsp [mailto:juniper-nsp-bounces@puck.nether.net <mailto:juniper-nsp-bounces@puck.nether.net> ] On Behalf Of
Jerry Jones
Sent: Friday, April 29, 2016 1:07 PM
To: Colton Conor <colton.conor@gmail.com <mailto:colton.conor@gmail.com> >
Cc: Juniper List <juniper-nsp@puck.nether.net <mailto:juniper-nsp@puck.nether.net> >
Subject: Re: [j-nsp] EX4600 Vs QFX 5100 VS ACX 5048

The ACX has many more MPLS and CE features compared to the QFX.


On Apr 29, 2016, at 11:35 AM, Colton Conor <colton.conor@gmail.com <mailto:colton.conor@gmail.com> > wrote:

Besides port count and expansion modules, what is the main differences
between these three Juniper switches (actually Juniper has the ACX under
their router section on their website). I believe all three use Broadcom
Trident II chips.

This Juniper doc says:

Even though QFX5100 and EX4600 Switches use the same chipset, MPLS support
differs.EX4600 switches support only basic MPLS functionality while QFX5100
switches support some of the more advanced features. See "MPLS Feature
Support on QFX Series and EX4600 Switches" on page 17 for details.
http://www.juniper.net/techpubs/en_US/junos14.1/information-products/pathway <http://www.juniper.net/techpubs/en_US/junos14.1/information-products/pathway-pages/ex4600/mpls.pdf>
-pages/ex4600/mpls.pdf

The ACX seems interesting. I know it is MEF 2.0 certified while the other
two are not. Besided MEF certification I would like to know how it differs
from the QFX5100 as the port count is identical.

Does anyone have experience with these three platforms?
_______________________________________________
juniper-nsp mailing list juniper-nsp@puck.nether.net <mailto:juniper-nsp@puck.nether.net>
https://puck.nether.net/mailman/listinfo/juniper-nsp

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



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

On 29/Apr/16 22:28, Colton Conor wrote:

> Aaron,
>
> Thanks for the information and real world examples. Great to hear you got
> Cisco and Juniper to work together as well. Sounds like you had Cisco in
> your network today, and are adding Juniper. What was the business case or
> reason for this? Is it because Cisco does not have a similar MEF 10G 1U
> box? If they do I am not aware what model it is. Most are recommending an
> ASR920, but that only has like 4 10G interfaces.

As of now, the ASR920 is the only 1U router with "many" ports that Cisco
will sell you at a price-point that gives a lot of IP/MPLS feature
capability, on a Cisco-owned silicon.

I've ranted many times about what I think of the ACX on this list, so I
won't repeat myself.

Suffice it to say, I've been speaking to Cisco about increasing density
for the ASR920, but this won't be easy for various reasons, which I can
appreciate. Considering how far we've come since the MPLS-In-The-Access
became a practical concept for us back in 2009, to be honest, I'm happy
with where we are as a community.

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

So the Cisco 5001 is the direct competitor to the Juniper ACX5048. Both
seem to be based off the Broadcom Trident II. Mark can you give me more
details on the reasons why the Broadcom based offerings are such a bad
option? I know you like the ASR920, but 4 10G ports is not enough.

Aaron, do you think the problems with the NCS5001 still exists? How long
ago did you test those? And just to confirm those are not present on the
ACX5048?

Besides Cisco and Juniper solutions discussed, what else is out there that
has more than 4 10G ports with these feature sets?

On Fri, Apr 29, 2016 at 4:10 PM, Aaron <aaron1@gvtc.com> wrote:

> Yw Colton
>
>
>
> Yes we are mostly cisco as we deployed an mpls network a few years back
> with asr9k core and me3600 distribution… asr901 at cell sites…
>
>
>
> Yes Colton cisco has 1U box, more about that below… NCS5K
>
>
>
> Agreed Colton the ASR920 tops out at too few 10 gig interfaces to be
> considered for my eval
>
>
>
> Business case ? perhaps the primary driving factor was in our ftth
> broadband network where we are selling tons of bw to our subs….those calix
> e7 olt’s have dual 10 gig uplinks and will have more in the future… to keep
> up with the pace of BW consumption we needed more 10 gig interfaces in the
> distribution layer of our network… the current device there was Cisco’s
> ME3600 with only (2) 10 gig (4 on the CX model)
>
>
>
> We determined that we wanted (8) or more 10 gigs in an mpls capable box
> similar in size/function as the cisco me3600 that we widely deployed…
>
>
>
> We had deployed the ME3600 with MPLS L2VPN and L3VPN so we needed a box
> that could do that also. We also deployed MEF-style eline, elan, etree
> services within the me3600’s and asr9k’s so I needed a box that could do
> that also. (aka, vpls, vpws, bgp-ad w/ldp-sig auto-vpls)…also deployed was
> mpls l3vpn vrf for ipv4 (aka vpnv4, inet-vpn) and with plans to go to 6VPE
> (aka mpls l3vpn w/ipv6 support)… so yeah, I needed all that…
>
>
>
> we ruled out the cisco asr920 was it tops out with (6) 10 gig
>
>
>
> we ruled out the cisco ncs5k as it was problematic in its infancy. I was
> attracted to this box with (~40) 10 gig and (4) 100 gig, but the problems
> were to great (bad issues with l3vpn and l2vpn) and some things just
> weren’t even there yet.
>
>
>
> We ruled out cisco asr903 and juniper mx104 style modular/larger boxes as
> me3600 replacements since they were bigger… and not quite what we were
> looking for…
>
>
>
> We liked and settled on the juniper acx5048…
>
>
>
> Hope that helps…
>
>
>
> - Aaron
>
>
>
>
>
> *From:* Colton Conor [mailto:colton.conor@gmail.com]
> *Sent:* Friday, April 29, 2016 3:29 PM
> *To:* Aaron <aaron1@gvtc.com>
> *Cc:* Jerry Jones <jjones@danrj.com>; Juniper List <
> juniper-nsp@puck.nether.net>
>
> *Subject:* Re: [j-nsp] EX4600 Vs QFX 5100 VS ACX 5048
>
>
>
> Aaron,
>
>
> Thanks for the information and real world examples. Great to hear you got
> Cisco and Juniper to work together as well. Sounds like you had Cisco in
> your network today, and are adding Juniper. What was the business case or
> reason for this? Is it because Cisco does not have a similar MEF 10G 1U
> box? If they do I am not aware what model it is. Most are recommending an
> ASR920, but that only has like 4 10G interfaces.
>
>
>
> On Fri, Apr 29, 2016 at 3:06 PM, Aaron <aaron1@gvtc.com> wrote:
>
> I recently purchased several ACX5048's and am testing and deploying them as
> we speak...all in all, I'm pleased thus far. This is pretty much my first
> experience with Juniper/MPLS devices.
>
> I got a working scenario as of yesterday of EVPLAN (MEF-speak for ELAN with
> tagging on PE-CE handoff)...(basically VPLS Routing Instance with BGP AD
> and
> LDP Sig) the JTAC was helpful in understanding the PE-CE Junos Ethernet tag
> push/pop I needed. This is interoperating with IOS XR (asr9k) and Classic
> IOS (ME3600). One glitch was noticed but it might be a subtlety during
> service activation/change, but was also only seen on the 9k XR side as a
> down'd psuedowire... (j)tac cases are in the works to understand why that
> occurred. Other than that acx5048, me3600, asr9k are working in a RFC4762
> VPLS scenario.
>
> I will say that JTAC did not know how to do this right away... it took them
> a day or more to figure it out. JTAC said that this ACX5048 platform is
> fairly new and they are learning it as well. (this was the person I talked
> to anyway)
>
> I have a working scenario with MPLS L3VPN on the ACX5048 also...
> inet-vpn...
> this is also interop'ing just fine with ME3600 and ASR9k...
>
> I did a brief test with ELINE (mef speak for p-to-p pw) and seemed ok
>
> I have a few more things I need to test, but at this point I've been
> pleased
> with the ACX5048.
>
> I love the (48) 10 gig interfaces (6) 40 gig in a 1U size !
>
> - Aaron
>
>
> -----Original Message-----
> From: juniper-nsp [mailto:juniper-nsp-bounces@puck.nether.net] On Behalf
> Of
> Jerry Jones
> Sent: Friday, April 29, 2016 1:07 PM
> To: Colton Conor <colton.conor@gmail.com>
> Cc: Juniper List <juniper-nsp@puck.nether.net>
> Subject: Re: [j-nsp] EX4600 Vs QFX 5100 VS ACX 5048
>
> The ACX has many more MPLS and CE features compared to the QFX.
>
>
> On Apr 29, 2016, at 11:35 AM, Colton Conor <colton.conor@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> Besides port count and expansion modules, what is the main differences
> between these three Juniper switches (actually Juniper has the ACX under
> their router section on their website). I believe all three use Broadcom
> Trident II chips.
>
> This Juniper doc says:
>
> Even though QFX5100 and EX4600 Switches use the same chipset, MPLS support
> differs.EX4600 switches support only basic MPLS functionality while QFX5100
> switches support some of the more advanced features. See "MPLS Feature
> Support on QFX Series and EX4600 Switches" on page 17 for details.
>
> http://www.juniper.net/techpubs/en_US/junos14.1/information-products/pathway
> -pages/ex4600/mpls.pdf
>
> The ACX seems interesting. I know it is MEF 2.0 certified while the other
> two are not. Besided MEF certification I would like to know how it differs
> from the QFX5100 as the port count is identical.
>
> Does anyone have experience with these three platforms?
> _______________________________________________
> juniper-nsp mailing list juniper-nsp@puck.nether.net
> https://puck.nether.net/mailman/listinfo/juniper-nsp
>
> _______________________________________________
> juniper-nsp mailing list juniper-nsp@puck.nether.net
> https://puck.nether.net/mailman/listinfo/juniper-nsp
>
>
>
_______________________________________________
juniper-nsp mailing list juniper-nsp@puck.nether.net
https://puck.nether.net/mailman/listinfo/juniper-nsp

On 30/Apr/16 02:24, Colton Conor wrote:

> So the Cisco 5001 is the direct competitor to the Juniper ACX5048.
> Both seem to be based off the Broadcom Trident II. Mark can you give
> me more details on the reasons why the Broadcom based offerings are
> such a bad option?

I'm not saying the Broadcom chip is bad, I'm saying that if you are used
to having a ton of features easily available and accessible on the MX
Trio, you might be in for a shock on the Broadcom chip. We dumped the
ACX because the chip could not do certain things we felt were important
to us, and the ASR920 could (for more than half the price anyway). I
know Aaron has been struggling with VLAN mapping on the ACX this last
week. Although I'm not sure if that is related to the Broadcom chip,
such capability is straightforward on the Trio chips.


> I know you like the ASR920, but 4 10G ports is not enough.

True, but looking at the cost and features of the ASR920, and the value
it gives us when running IP/MPLS services in the Access, it's cheaper
for me to run dedicated dark fibre to a larger PoP for 10Gbps
requirements in some places, or deploy DWDM pizza boxes alongside my
ASR920's in others.

For us, feature parity across all vendor equipment regardless of
function, size or location is much more important than anything else.

When the vendors figure out how to deliver cheap 10Gbps ports on custom
chips in a 1U chassis, I'll be the first one to buy.

>
>
> Besides Cisco and Juniper solutions discussed, what else is out there
> that has more than 4 10G ports with these feature sets?

Look at Brocade.

I'm not sure what they are doing now, but back then, they had a solid 1U
Metro-E box. We never bought it because we wanted to keep two vendors
only in our network. Technically, the box was/is sound. But I'd
definitely buy them for some specific use cases we are working on.

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

Mark,

I looked at Brocade as well, but on their carrier ethernet page they only
list the CES which has max 4 10G ports. The only thing that has more than 4
10G ports and is MEF certified seems to be their larger MLXe routers. Those
are more built for core than metro access.


On Sat, Apr 30, 2016 at 4:49 AM, Mark Tinka <mark.tinka@seacom.mu> wrote:

>
>
> On 30/Apr/16 02:24, Colton Conor wrote:
>
> So the Cisco 5001 is the direct competitor to the Juniper ACX5048. Both
> seem to be based off the Broadcom Trident II. Mark can you give me more
> details on the reasons why the Broadcom based offerings are such a bad
> option?
>
>
> I'm not saying the Broadcom chip is bad, I'm saying that if you are used
> to having a ton of features easily available and accessible on the MX Trio,
> you might be in for a shock on the Broadcom chip. We dumped the ACX because
> the chip could not do certain things we felt were important to us, and the
> ASR920 could (for more than half the price anyway). I know Aaron has been
> struggling with VLAN mapping on the ACX this last week. Although I'm not
> sure if that is related to the Broadcom chip, such capability is
> straightforward on the Trio chips.
>
>
> I know you like the ASR920, but 4 10G ports is not enough.
>
>
> True, but looking at the cost and features of the ASR920, and the value it
> gives us when running IP/MPLS services in the Access, it's cheaper for me
> to run dedicated dark fibre to a larger PoP for 10Gbps requirements in some
> places, or deploy DWDM pizza boxes alongside my ASR920's in others.
>
> For us, feature parity across all vendor equipment regardless of function,
> size or location is much more important than anything else.
>
> When the vendors figure out how to deliver cheap 10Gbps ports on custom
> chips in a 1U chassis, I'll be the first one to buy.
>
>
>
> Besides Cisco and Juniper solutions discussed, what else is out there that
> has more than 4 10G ports with these feature sets?
>
>
> Look at Brocade.
>
> I'm not sure what they are doing now, but back then, they had a solid 1U
> Metro-E box. We never bought it because we wanted to keep two vendors only
> in our network. Technically, the box was/is sound. But I'd definitely buy
> them for some specific use cases we are working on.
>
> Mark.
>
_______________________________________________
juniper-nsp mailing list juniper-nsp@puck.nether.net
https://puck.nether.net/mailman/listinfo/juniper-nsp

On 30/Apr/16 17:07, Colton Conor wrote:

> Mark,
>
> I looked at Brocade as well, but on their carrier ethernet page they
> only list the CES which has max 4 10G ports. The only thing that has
> more than 4 10G ports and is MEF certified seems to be their larger
> MLXe routers. Those are more built for core than metro access.

Yes, the CES/CER2000 NetIron boxes were the ones we looked at that were
capable for the job.

I know they had modular options that could take additional XFP-based
10Gbps line cards, but overall, the 10Gbps port density is low.

Ultimately, if you want a decent-sized and reasonably priced
10Gbps-capable Metro-E switch that will mostly work, the ACX5000 is
going to be hard to beat. What you need to think about is whether you
can live without some of the features the Broadcom chip won't support.
Most networks might, but I can't speak for them.

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

Hi,

I am not very familiar with their portfolio but ALU seems to have decent metro/agg boxes.

From a conversation with an Ericsson SE a few months ago they were suppose to release a 1U platform with excellent port density.

Amos

Sent from my iPhone

On 30 Apr 2016, at 03:24, Colton Conor <colton.conor@gmail.com<mailto:colton.conor@gmail.com>> wrote:

So the Cisco 5001 is the direct competitor to the Juniper ACX5048. Both
seem to be based off the Broadcom Trident II. Mark can you give me more
details on the reasons why the Broadcom based offerings are such a bad
option? I know you like the ASR920, but 4 10G ports is not enough.

Aaron, do you think the problems with the NCS5001 still exists? How long
ago did you test those? And just to confirm those are not present on the
ACX5048?

Besides Cisco and Juniper solutions discussed, what else is out there that
has more than 4 10G ports with these feature sets?

On Fri, Apr 29, 2016 at 4:10 PM, Aaron <aaron1@gvtc.com<mailto:aaron1@gvtc.com>> wrote:

Yw Colton



Yes we are mostly cisco as we deployed an mpls network a few years back
with asr9k core and me3600 distribution… asr901 at cell sites…



Yes Colton cisco has 1U box, more about that below… NCS5K



Agreed Colton the ASR920 tops out at too few 10 gig interfaces to be
considered for my eval



Business case ? perhaps the primary driving factor was in our ftth
broadband network where we are selling tons of bw to our subs….those calix
e7 olt’s have dual 10 gig uplinks and will have more in the future… to keep
up with the pace of BW consumption we needed more 10 gig interfaces in the
distribution layer of our network… the current device there was Cisco’s
ME3600 with only (2) 10 gig (4 on the CX model)



We determined that we wanted (8) or more 10 gigs in an mpls capable box
similar in size/function as the cisco me3600 that we widely deployed…



We had deployed the ME3600 with MPLS L2VPN and L3VPN so we needed a box
that could do that also. We also deployed MEF-style eline, elan, etree
services within the me3600’s and asr9k’s so I needed a box that could do
that also. (aka, vpls, vpws, bgp-ad w/ldp-sig auto-vpls)…also deployed was
mpls l3vpn vrf for ipv4 (aka vpnv4, inet-vpn) and with plans to go to 6VPE
(aka mpls l3vpn w/ipv6 support)… so yeah, I needed all that…



we ruled out the cisco asr920 was it tops out with (6) 10 gig



we ruled out the cisco ncs5k as it was problematic in its infancy. I was
attracted to this box with (~40) 10 gig and (4) 100 gig, but the problems
were to great (bad issues with l3vpn and l2vpn) and some things just
weren’t even there yet.



We ruled out cisco asr903 and juniper mx104 style modular/larger boxes as
me3600 replacements since they were bigger… and not quite what we were
looking for…



We liked and settled on the juniper acx5048…



Hope that helps…



- Aaron





*From:* Colton Conor [mailto:colton.conor@gmail.com]
*Sent:* Friday, April 29, 2016 3:29 PM
*To:* Aaron <aaron1@gvtc.com<mailto:aaron1@gvtc.com>>
*Cc:* Jerry Jones <jjones@danrj.com<mailto:jjones@danrj.com>>; Juniper List <
juniper-nsp@puck.nether.net<mailto:juniper-nsp@puck.nether.net>>

*Subject:* Re: [j-nsp] EX4600 Vs QFX 5100 VS ACX 5048



Aaron,


Thanks for the information and real world examples. Great to hear you got
Cisco and Juniper to work together as well. Sounds like you had Cisco in
your network today, and are adding Juniper. What was the business case or
reason for this? Is it because Cisco does not have a similar MEF 10G 1U
box? If they do I am not aware what model it is. Most are recommending an
ASR920, but that only has like 4 10G interfaces.



On Fri, Apr 29, 2016 at 3:06 PM, Aaron <aaron1@gvtc.com<mailto:aaron1@gvtc.com>> wrote:

I recently purchased several ACX5048's and am testing and deploying them as
we speak...all in all, I'm pleased thus far. This is pretty much my first
experience with Juniper/MPLS devices.

I got a working scenario as of yesterday of EVPLAN (MEF-speak for ELAN with
tagging on PE-CE handoff)...(basically VPLS Routing Instance with BGP AD
and
LDP Sig) the JTAC was helpful in understanding the PE-CE Junos Ethernet tag
push/pop I needed. This is interoperating with IOS XR (asr9k) and Classic
IOS (ME3600). One glitch was noticed but it might be a subtlety during
service activation/change, but was also only seen on the 9k XR side as a
down'd psuedowire... (j)tac cases are in the works to understand why that
occurred. Other than that acx5048, me3600, asr9k are working in a RFC4762
VPLS scenario.

I will say that JTAC did not know how to do this right away... it took them
a day or more to figure it out. JTAC said that this ACX5048 platform is
fairly new and they are learning it as well. (this was the person I talked
to anyway)

I have a working scenario with MPLS L3VPN on the ACX5048 also...
inet-vpn...
this is also interop'ing just fine with ME3600 and ASR9k...

I did a brief test with ELINE (mef speak for p-to-p pw) and seemed ok

I have a few more things I need to test, but at this point I've been
pleased
with the ACX5048.

I love the (48) 10 gig interfaces (6) 40 gig in a 1U size !

- Aaron


-----Original Message-----
From: juniper-nsp [mailto:juniper-nsp-bounces@puck.nether.net] On Behalf
Of
Jerry Jones
Sent: Friday, April 29, 2016 1:07 PM
To: Colton Conor <colton.conor@gmail.com<mailto:colton.conor@gmail.com>>
Cc: Juniper List <juniper-nsp@puck.nether.net<mailto:juniper-nsp@puck.nether.net>>
Subject: Re: [j-nsp] EX4600 Vs QFX 5100 VS ACX 5048

The ACX has many more MPLS and CE features compared to the QFX.


On Apr 29, 2016, at 11:35 AM, Colton Conor <colton.conor@gmail.com<mailto:colton.conor@gmail.com>> wrote:

Besides port count and expansion modules, what is the main differences
between these three Juniper switches (actually Juniper has the ACX under
their router section on their website). I believe all three use Broadcom
Trident II chips.

This Juniper doc says:

Even though QFX5100 and EX4600 Switches use the same chipset, MPLS support
differs.EX4600 switches support only basic MPLS functionality while QFX5100
switches support some of the more advanced features. See "MPLS Feature
Support on QFX Series and EX4600 Switches" on page 17 for details.

http://www.juniper.net/techpubs/en_US/junos14.1/information-products/pathway
-pages/ex4600/mpls.pdf

The ACX seems interesting. I know it is MEF 2.0 certified while the other
two are not. Besided MEF certification I would like to know how it differs
from the QFX5100 as the port count is identical.

Does anyone have experience with these three platforms?
_______________________________________________
juniper-nsp mailing list juniper-nsp@puck.nether.net<mailto:juniper-nsp@puck.nether.net>
https://puck.nether.net/mailman/listinfo/juniper-nsp

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



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

On 30/Apr/16 18:39, Amos Rosenboim wrote:

> Hi,
>
> I am not very familiar with their portfolio but ALU seems to have
> decent metro/agg boxes.

ALU's (Nokia's) Metro-E boxes aren't dense enough.

I've been over this with them since 2009.

> From a conversation with an Ericsson SE a few months ago they were
> suppose to release a 1U platform with excellent port density.

Don't know much on the Ericsson side, to be honest.

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

Hi,

Last Time I went to meet the NETIRON PM in San Francisco HQ, we were part of a brainstorming session around "building a 1U MLXe BOX with high port density".

I don't know if this has moved passed the conception phase, I do hope so.

But the MLXe platform is a very capable Metro-E box with lots of the usual features.

I'll try to share more after my next visite.

HTH.



> Le 30 avr. 2016 à 17:13, Mark Tinka <mark.tinka@seacom.mu> a écrit :
>
>
>
>> On 30/Apr/16 17:07, Colton Conor wrote:
>>
>> Mark,
>>
>> I looked at Brocade as well, but on their carrier ethernet page they
>> only list the CES which has max 4 10G ports. The only thing that has
>> more than 4 10G ports and is MEF certified seems to be their larger
>> MLXe routers. Those are more built for core than metro access.
>
> Yes, the CES/CER2000 NetIron boxes were the ones we looked at that were
> capable for the job.
>
> I know they had modular options that could take additional XFP-based
> 10Gbps line cards, but overall, the 10Gbps port density is low.
>
> Ultimately, if you want a decent-sized and reasonably priced
> 10Gbps-capable Metro-E switch that will mostly work, the ACX5000 is
> going to be hard to beat. What you need to think about is whether you
> can live without some of the features the Broadcom chip won't support.
> Most networks might, but I can't speak for them.
>
> Mark.
> _______________________________________________
> juniper-nsp mailing list juniper-nsp@puck.nether.net
> https://puck.nether.net/mailman/listinfo/juniper-nsp
_______________________________________________
juniper-nsp mailing list juniper-nsp@puck.nether.net
https://puck.nether.net/mailman/listinfo/juniper-nsp

On 30/Apr/16 21:14, Youssef Bengelloun-Zahr wrote:

>
> But the MLXe platform is a very capable Metro-E box with lots of the usual features.

So is the MX480/960, ASR9010/9912, SR7750. Problem all these are too
large and cost too much for Metro-E applications.

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

Hence a 1U "mini" version of the MLXe. It wouldn't be a CER box.

Let's see what the futur holds.

BR.



> Le 1 mai 2016 à 00:02, Mark Tinka <mark.tinka@seacom.mu> a écrit :
>
>
>
>> On 30/Apr/16 21:14, Youssef Bengelloun-Zahr wrote:
>>
>>
>> But the MLXe platform is a very capable Metro-E box with lots of the usual features.
>
> So is the MX480/960, ASR9010/9912, SR7750. Problem all these are too
> large and cost too much for Metro-E applications.
>
> Mark.
_______________________________________________
juniper-nsp mailing list juniper-nsp@puck.nether.net
https://puck.nether.net/mailman/listinfo/juniper-nsp

I will believe it when I see it. A small 1U box with say 24 10G ports would
kill the rest of their offerings, so I don't expect it to be low cost which
is needed for metro deployments.

On Sun, May 1, 2016 at 12:21 AM, Youssef Bengelloun-Zahr <youssef@720.fr>
wrote:

> Hence a 1U "mini" version of the MLXe. It wouldn't be a CER box.
>
> Let's see what the futur holds.
>
> BR.
>
>
>
> > Le 1 mai 2016 à 00:02, Mark Tinka <mark.tinka@seacom.mu> a écrit :
> >
> >
> >
> >> On 30/Apr/16 21:14, Youssef Bengelloun-Zahr wrote:
> >>
> >>
> >> But the MLXe platform is a very capable Metro-E box with lots of the
> usual features.
> >
> > So is the MX480/960, ASR9010/9912, SR7750. Problem all these are too
> > large and cost too much for Metro-E applications.
> >
> > Mark.
>
_______________________________________________
juniper-nsp mailing list juniper-nsp@puck.nether.net
https://puck.nether.net/mailman/listinfo/juniper-nsp

Hello,

Well, the idea at the time was to offer a hybrid between CER (form factor) and MLXe (port density / features) aiming at a small PE with high port density.

We ended up discussing possible port combinations :

- 2x 100G ports + 48x 10G ports,

- 4x 100G ports + 24x 10G ports,

- POD licensing for progressive activations,

- etc,

As I said, I don't know IF there is an ongoing project for this.

I'll update you guys if/when I get some fresh News.

Best regards.



> Le 1 mai 2016 à 16:08, Colton Conor <colton.conor@gmail.com> a écrit :
>
> I will believe it when I see it. A small 1U box with say 24 10G ports would kill the rest of their offerings, so I don't expect it to be low cost which is needed for metro deployments.
>
>> On Sun, May 1, 2016 at 12:21 AM, Youssef Bengelloun-Zahr <youssef@720.fr> wrote:
>> Hence a 1U "mini" version of the MLXe. It wouldn't be a CER box.
>>
>> Let's see what the futur holds.
>>
>> BR.
>>
>>
>>
>> > Le 1 mai 2016 à 00:02, Mark Tinka <mark.tinka@seacom.mu> a écrit :
>> >
>> >
>> >
>> >> On 30/Apr/16 21:14, Youssef Bengelloun-Zahr wrote:
>> >>
>> >>
>> >> But the MLXe platform is a very capable Metro-E box with lots of the usual features.
>> >
>> > So is the MX480/960, ASR9010/9912, SR7750. Problem all these are too
>> > large and cost too much for Metro-E applications.
>> >
>> > Mark.
>
_______________________________________________
juniper-nsp mailing list juniper-nsp@puck.nether.net
https://puck.nether.net/mailman/listinfo/juniper-nsp

On 30.04.2016 11:49, Mark Tinka wrote:
> When the vendors figure out how to deliver cheap 10Gbps ports on custom
> chips in a 1U chassis, I'll be the first one to buy.

+1

I'd love to see a 1U (or 2U 300mm deep) TRIO-based metro device with >20
1/10G interfaces (with proper buffers and QoS) and 2-4 40/100G
interfaces. Preferably with a decent control-plane as well (Intel Atom
or Xeon) and at a competitive price.

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

According to the recent rumors flying around, such a device should be on it's way.
However, I've been hearing these rumors for quite some time.
Hopefully this week this should be clarified to me, but under NDA.

Regards,

Amos

Sent from my iPhone

On 2 May 2016, at 12:20, Harald F. Karlsen <elfkin@gmail.com<mailto:elfkin@gmail.com>> wrote:

On 30.04.2016 11:49, Mark Tinka wrote:
When the vendors figure out how to deliver cheap 10Gbps ports on custom
chips in a 1U chassis, I'll be the first one to buy.

+1

I'd love to see a 1U (or 2U 300mm deep) TRIO-based metro device with >20
1/10G interfaces (with proper buffers and QoS) and 2-4 40/100G
interfaces. Preferably with a decent control-plane as well (Intel Atom
or Xeon) and at a competitive price.

--
Harald
_______________________________________________
juniper-nsp mailing list juniper-nsp@puck.nether.net<mailto:juniper-nsp@puck.nether.net>
https://puck.nether.net/mailman/listinfo/juniper-nsp
_______________________________________________
juniper-nsp mailing list juniper-nsp@puck.nether.net
https://puck.nether.net/mailman/listinfo/juniper-nsp

So that would replace what, their currently MX5 through MX240 line of
products? Why would Juniper do that when they already have products that
meet those specifications? Don't get me wrong I would love to see the same
box, but I just have a hard time believing big J and C are going to make a
small dense box like we all want at a competitive price point. They might
be forced to with Arista's new offerings however.

On Mon, May 2, 2016 at 4:19 AM, Harald F. Karlsen <elfkin@gmail.com> wrote:

> On 30.04.2016 11:49, Mark Tinka wrote:
>
>> When the vendors figure out how to deliver cheap 10Gbps ports on custom
>> chips in a 1U chassis, I'll be the first one to buy.
>>
>
> +1
>
> I'd love to see a 1U (or 2U 300mm deep) TRIO-based metro device with >20
> 1/10G interfaces (with proper buffers and QoS) and 2-4 40/100G interfaces.
> Preferably with a decent control-plane as well (Intel Atom or Xeon) and at
> a competitive price.
>
> --
> Harald
>
> _______________________________________________
> juniper-nsp mailing list juniper-nsp@puck.nether.net
> https://puck.nether.net/mailman/listinfo/juniper-nsp
>
_______________________________________________
juniper-nsp mailing list juniper-nsp@puck.nether.net
https://puck.nether.net/mailman/listinfo/juniper-nsp

I have no problem believing that, no stopping progress. It's
inevitable that we'll see new higher capacity ASR9001 replacement and
new higher capacity MX104 replacement (as well as ALU SR, Huawei
CX/NE...).

What I have hard time believing is that we're in special moment in
history, with as small/dense boxes at this price point as possible.

On 2 May 2016 at 06:08, Colton Conor <colton.conor@gmail.com> wrote:
> So that would replace what, their currently MX5 through MX240 line of
> products? Why would Juniper do that when they already have products that
> meet those specifications? Don't get me wrong I would love to see the same
> box, but I just have a hard time believing big J and C are going to make a
> small dense box like we all want at a competitive price point. They might
> be forced to with Arista's new offerings however.
>
> On Mon, May 2, 2016 at 4:19 AM, Harald F. Karlsen <elfkin@gmail.com> wrote:
>
>> On 30.04.2016 11:49, Mark Tinka wrote:
>>
>>> When the vendors figure out how to deliver cheap 10Gbps ports on custom
>>> chips in a 1U chassis, I'll be the first one to buy.
>>>
>>
>> +1
>>
>> I'd love to see a 1U (or 2U 300mm deep) TRIO-based metro device with >20
>> 1/10G interfaces (with proper buffers and QoS) and 2-4 40/100G interfaces.
>> Preferably with a decent control-plane as well (Intel Atom or Xeon) and at
>> a competitive price.
>>
>> --
>> Harald
>>
>> _______________________________________________
>> juniper-nsp mailing list juniper-nsp@puck.nether.net
>> https://puck.nether.net/mailman/listinfo/juniper-nsp
>>
> _______________________________________________
> juniper-nsp mailing list juniper-nsp@puck.nether.net
> https://puck.nether.net/mailman/listinfo/juniper-nsp



--
++ytti
_______________________________________________
juniper-nsp mailing list juniper-nsp@puck.nether.net
https://puck.nether.net/mailman/listinfo/juniper-nsp

Jerry,

Can you go into more details about the ACX's "many more MPLS and CE
features compared to the QFX" The QFX already has many more MPLS features
than an EX4600.

The ACX juniper seems to sell at a high price premium compared to the
QFX5100. Same hardware, just different stand of Junos. I want to know what
enhanced features the ACX has over the QFX5100.

On Fri, Apr 29, 2016 at 1:06 PM, Jerry Jones <jjones@danrj.com> wrote:

> The ACX has many more MPLS and CE features compared to the QFX.
>
>
> On Apr 29, 2016, at 11:35 AM, Colton Conor <colton.conor@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> Besides port count and expansion modules, what is the main differences
> between these three Juniper switches (actually Juniper has the ACX under
> their router section on their website). I believe all three use Broadcom
> Trident II chips.
>
> This Juniper doc says:
>
> Even though QFX5100 and EX4600 Switches use the same chipset, MPLS support
> differs.EX4600 switches support only basic MPLS functionality while QFX5100
> switches support some of the more advanced features. See “MPLS Feature
> Support on QFX Series and EX4600 Switches” on page 17 for details.
>
> http://www.juniper.net/techpubs/en_US/junos14.1/information-products/pathway-pages/ex4600/mpls.pdf
>
> The ACX seems interesting. I know it is MEF 2.0 certified while the other
> two are not. Besided MEF certification I would like to know how it differs
> from the QFX5100 as the port count is identical.
>
> Does anyone have experience with these three platforms?
> _______________________________________________
> juniper-nsp mailing list juniper-nsp@puck.nether.net
> https://puck.nether.net/mailman/listinfo/juniper-nsp
>
>
_______________________________________________
juniper-nsp mailing list juniper-nsp@puck.nether.net
https://puck.nether.net/mailman/listinfo/juniper-nsp

AFAIK it is mostly VPLS and maybe some OAM feature

btw the QFX5100 with D35 release has a new feature that I dont know if it
available on the ACX5K ECMP for MPLS traffic using firewall filter

Nitzan

On Mon, May 2, 2016 at 8:26 PM, Colton Conor <colton.conor@gmail.com> wrote:

> Jerry,
>
> Can you go into more details about the ACX's "many more MPLS and CE
> features compared to the QFX" The QFX already has many more MPLS features
> than an EX4600.
>
> The ACX juniper seems to sell at a high price premium compared to the
> QFX5100. Same hardware, just different stand of Junos. I want to know what
> enhanced features the ACX has over the QFX5100.
>
> On Fri, Apr 29, 2016 at 1:06 PM, Jerry Jones <jjones@danrj.com> wrote:
>
> > The ACX has many more MPLS and CE features compared to the QFX.
> >
> >
> > On Apr 29, 2016, at 11:35 AM, Colton Conor <colton.conor@gmail.com>
> wrote:
> >
> > Besides port count and expansion modules, what is the main differences
> > between these three Juniper switches (actually Juniper has the ACX under
> > their router section on their website). I believe all three use Broadcom
> > Trident II chips.
> >
> > This Juniper doc says:
> >
> > Even though QFX5100 and EX4600 Switches use the same chipset, MPLS
> support
> > differs.EX4600 switches support only basic MPLS functionality while
> QFX5100
> > switches support some of the more advanced features. See “MPLS Feature
> > Support on QFX Series and EX4600 Switches” on page 17 for details.
> >
> >
> http://www.juniper.net/techpubs/en_US/junos14.1/information-products/pathway-pages/ex4600/mpls.pdf
> >
> > The ACX seems interesting. I know it is MEF 2.0 certified while the other
> > two are not. Besided MEF certification I would like to know how it
> differs
> > from the QFX5100 as the port count is identical.
> >
> > Does anyone have experience with these three platforms?
> > _______________________________________________
> > juniper-nsp mailing list juniper-nsp@puck.nether.net
> > https://puck.nether.net/mailman/listinfo/juniper-nsp
> >
> >
> _______________________________________________
> juniper-nsp mailing list juniper-nsp@puck.nether.net
> https://puck.nether.net/mailman/listinfo/juniper-nsp
>
_______________________________________________
juniper-nsp mailing list juniper-nsp@puck.nether.net
https://puck.nether.net/mailman/listinfo/juniper-nsp

On 2/May/16 11:34, Amos Rosenboim wrote:

> According to the recent rumors flying around, such a device should be on it's way.
> However, I've been hearing these rumors for quite some time.
> Hopefully this week this should be clarified to me, but under NDA.

I'll believe it when I see it.

When reviewing Metro-E boxes back in 2009, the MX80 was just being
developed. I "convinced" Juniper to make a 1U MX Metro-E switch with 40
- 48 ports, that could do everything the larger MX chassis could, since
the MX80 was simply too big and too costly.

You can see how "convincing" I was...

Mark.

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

On 2 May 2016 at 13:20, Mark Tinka <mark.tinka@seacom.mu> wrote:
> When reviewing Metro-E boxes back in 2009, the MX80 was just being
> developed. I "convinced" Juniper to make a 1U MX Metro-E switch with 40
> - 48 ports, that could do everything the larger MX chassis could, since
> the MX80 was simply too big and too costly.

I don't see the logic here. Just because it's 1RU, does not mean it'll
become cheaper. If anything, it's more expensive due to more NRE
needed to solve thermal issues.
If they'll make 1RU Trio box, there is no reason to suspect price
point would be significantly cheaper than MX80/MX104. If you need
cheaper box, you need to go low-touch/pipeline/asic style
forwarding-logic.

Does 1RU/2RU/3RU really matter that much? To me MX104 is better option
than MX80 due to being less deep, depth of MX80 was an issue, not the
RU.

--
++ytti
_______________________________________________
juniper-nsp mailing list juniper-nsp@puck.nether.net
https://puck.nether.net/mailman/listinfo/juniper-nsp

On 2/May/16 22:26, Saku Ytti wrote:

> I don't see the logic here. Just because it's 1RU, does not mean it'll
> become cheaper. If anything, it's more expensive due to more NRE
> needed to solve thermal issues.
> If they'll make 1RU Trio box, there is no reason to suspect price
> point would be significantly cheaper than MX80/MX104. If you need
> cheaper box, you need to go low-touch/pipeline/asic style
> forwarding-logic.
>
> Does 1RU/2RU/3RU really matter that much? To me MX104 is better option
> than MX80 due to being less deep, depth of MX80 was an issue, not the
> RU.

The form factor was just one aspect. The box also needed to be
reasonably cheap with an acceptable level of creature comfort sacrifices.

It's not impossible - Cisco did it with the ME3600X/3800X, and they've
done it again with the ASR920.

Like it or not, the other vendors (perhaps with the exception of
Brocade) do not have an answer. Much to my chagrin, but hey...

For us, 1U is critical because space in the places we are deploying
these systems is too tight.

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

On 2 May 2016 at 13:35, Mark Tinka <mark.tinka@seacom.mu> wrote:

> The form factor was just one aspect. The box also needed to be
> reasonably cheap with an acceptable level of creature comfort sacrifices.

You stated 'that could do everything the larger MX chassis could'.
Trio/EZchip are run-to-completion/high-touch/NPU and can do anything,
you're only limited by time (eventually there is watchdog which will
kill PPE running too long).

> It's not impossible - Cisco did it with the ME3600X/3800X, and they've
> done it again with the ASR920.

Sure, but not on EZchip, not a fair comparison.

--
++ytti
_______________________________________________
juniper-nsp mailing list juniper-nsp@puck.nether.net
https://puck.nether.net/mailman/listinfo/juniper-nsp

On 2/May/16 22:39, Saku Ytti wrote:

> You stated 'that could do everything the larger MX chassis could'.
> Trio/EZchip are run-to-completion/high-touch/NPU and can do anything,
> you're only limited by time (eventually there is watchdog which will
> kill PPE running too long).

Of course you can't compare a Metro-E box to a large chassis-based box
one-for-one.

The ASR920 and ME3600X/3800X can do everything a larger Cisco router can
do except a few things like hold a full BGP table in FIB (for which
there is a workaround), have dual control planes, e.t.c. The stuff that
cannot be done is not important enough to influence a buying decision on
my part, given the functional requirements.

So I still attain my goal without sacrificing much that I cannot deal
with another way.

> Sure, but not on EZchip, not a fair comparison.

Well, the Cisco chips on these boxes are in-house chips. So far, they
have met my requirements. So perhaps not fair, considering how much you
are getting in a small box at a much lower price that, for some reason,
other vendors simply can't hack.

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

On 02.05.2016 22:26, Saku Ytti wrote:
> On 2 May 2016 at 13:20, Mark Tinka <mark.tinka@seacom.mu> wrote:
>> When reviewing Metro-E boxes back in 2009, the MX80 was just being
>> developed. I "convinced" Juniper to make a 1U MX Metro-E switch with 40
>> - 48 ports, that could do everything the larger MX chassis could, since
>> the MX80 was simply too big and too costly.
>
> I don't see the logic here. Just because it's 1RU, does not mean it'll
> become cheaper. If anything, it's more expensive due to more NRE
> needed to solve thermal issues.
> If they'll make 1RU Trio box, there is no reason to suspect price
> point would be significantly cheaper than MX80/MX104. If you need
> cheaper box, you need to go low-touch/pipeline/asic style
> forwarding-logic.
>
I would say it depends on the market they aim for. If they could price a
small form-factor Trio-based device to compete with the smaller ASRs (or
even ME switches) they could ramp up production and hence decrease
production cost. I really think a lot of service providers want MPLS
closer to the edge and I think it's a big market for anyone who makes a
MPLS-capable device with a proper FIB, decent control-plane and proper
MPLS features (P2MP LSPs would be nice). Someone smarter than me should
figure out how to create such a device without cannibalizing their
existing products.

TLDR; I want to replace my metro switches with proper MPLS routers and
only spend marginally more on it. I personally think there's a big
market for whoever makes such a device.

> Does 1RU/2RU/3RU really matter that much? To me MX104 is better option
> than MX80 due to being less deep, depth of MX80 was an issue, not the
> RU.
>
I agree. Lower height and depth is of course better, but I agree that
depth is the biggest concern for a lot of telcos. For datacenters,
height is usually the biggest concern. A lot of SPs operate in both
domains so it's all about finding the best compromise (or maybe two
different SKUs?).

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

On 3 May 2016 at 05:43, Harald F. Karlsen <elfkin@gmail.com> wrote:

> I would say it depends on the market they aim for. If they could price a
> small form-factor Trio-based device to compete with the smaller ASRs (or
> even ME switches) they could ramp up production and hence decrease
> production cost. I really think a lot of service providers want MPLS closer
> to the edge and I think it's a big market for anyone who makes a

I agree, MPLS to the edge is great idea. What do the boxes need to
cost? I know someone who paid 3500EUR per MX80 (years years ago, when
MX104 nor MX5/10/40 didn't exist) and deployed many hundred if not 1k
of them as seamless MPLS access/edge device.

MX80, MX104 are competitive against ASR9001 purely from BOM POV, as
they are single chip fabricless devices. But still, similar box with
pipeline/low touch asic style solution would be even cheaper, it is
just how it is.

I don't think JNPR will ever compete with Trio platform against ASR or
ME, ACX is for that segment, but perhaps ACX is not there for all
use-cases.

> TLDR; I want to replace my metro switches with proper MPLS routers and only
> spend marginally more on it. I personally think there's a big market for
> whoever makes such a device.

What are you missing in ASR920 or ACX2k? But I do think that
inevitably what happened to L3 in switches will happen to MPLS, soon
you just cannot buy non-consumer switch which does not do MPLS.

> usually the biggest concern. A lot of SPs operate in both domains so it's
> all about finding the best compromise (or maybe two different SKUs?).

Interesting point. I wonder what would be the industrial design cost
for height and depth optimised versions when designed at the same
time. If 100% is current cost of industrial design, would it be 200%,
surely not? 150%? less?
--
++ytti
_______________________________________________
juniper-nsp mailing list juniper-nsp@puck.nether.net
https://puck.nether.net/mailman/listinfo/juniper-nsp

On 3 May 2016 at 06:05, Saku Ytti <saku@ytti.fi> wrote:
> I don't think JNPR will ever compete with Trio platform against ASR or
> ME, ACX is for that segment, but perhaps ACX is not there for all
> use-cases.

Against ASR\d{3}$ :/


--
++ytti
_______________________________________________
juniper-nsp mailing list juniper-nsp@puck.nether.net
https://puck.nether.net/mailman/listinfo/juniper-nsp

On 3/May/16 14:43, Harald F. Karlsen wrote:

>
> I would say it depends on the market they aim for. If they could price
> a small form-factor Trio-based device to compete with the smaller ASRs
> (or even ME switches) they could ramp up production and hence decrease
> production cost. I really think a lot of service providers want MPLS
> closer to the edge and I think it's a big market for anyone who makes
> a MPLS-capable device with a proper FIB, decent control-plane and
> proper MPLS features (P2MP LSPs would be nice).

The ASR920 supports p2mp RSVP-TE LSP's as well as mLDP.

Actually, we dropped the ACX purely because of lack of this.


> Someone smarter than me should figure out how to create such a device
> without cannibalizing their existing products.

That's my approach. If a business is hungry enough for a market, they'll
do the work.


>
> TLDR; I want to replace my metro switches with proper MPLS routers and
> only spend marginally more on it. I personally think there's a big
> market for whoever makes such a device.

The market is massive.

> I agree. Lower height and depth is of course better, but I agree that
> depth is the biggest concern for a lot of telcos. For datacenters,
> height is usually the biggest concern. A lot of SPs operate in both
> domains so it's all about finding the best compromise (or maybe two
> different SKUs?).

The ASR920 is slightly less deep than the MX104 (23.9cm for the ASR920
and 24.13cm for the MX104). The 1U is the cherry on top.

Mark.

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

Mark,

Which ASR920 model do you use, and do they all operate the same? Based on
the model comparison there is not much difference between them, but it does
look like the ASR-920-12SZ-IM has a Quad-core 1.2 GHz where the rest of the
models have a Dual-core 1 GHz.

Looks like the ASR-920-12SZ-IM has the ability to add a 1 port 10G IM card
making 5 10G ports total. The ASR-920-24SZ-IM has the ability to support
the 2 port 10G IM card, for a total of 6 10G ports. Kind of surprising
since the ASR-920-12SZ-IM has the faster processor. Both the
ASR-920-24SZ-IM and ASR-920-12SZ-IM have the same list price of $7,000 from
Cisco.

Model comparision here:
http://www.cisco.com/c/en/us/products/routers/asr-920-series-aggregation-services-router/models-comparison.html

On Tue, May 3, 2016 at 8:27 AM, Mark Tinka <mark.tinka@seacom.mu> wrote:

>
>
> On 3/May/16 14:43, Harald F. Karlsen wrote:
>
> >
> > I would say it depends on the market they aim for. If they could price
> > a small form-factor Trio-based device to compete with the smaller ASRs
> > (or even ME switches) they could ramp up production and hence decrease
> > production cost. I really think a lot of service providers want MPLS
> > closer to the edge and I think it's a big market for anyone who makes
> > a MPLS-capable device with a proper FIB, decent control-plane and
> > proper MPLS features (P2MP LSPs would be nice).
>
> The ASR920 supports p2mp RSVP-TE LSP's as well as mLDP.
>
> Actually, we dropped the ACX purely because of lack of this.
>
>
> > Someone smarter than me should figure out how to create such a device
> > without cannibalizing their existing products.
>
> That's my approach. If a business is hungry enough for a market, they'll
> do the work.
>
>
> >
> > TLDR; I want to replace my metro switches with proper MPLS routers and
> > only spend marginally more on it. I personally think there's a big
> > market for whoever makes such a device.
>
> The market is massive.
>
> > I agree. Lower height and depth is of course better, but I agree that
> > depth is the biggest concern for a lot of telcos. For datacenters,
> > height is usually the biggest concern. A lot of SPs operate in both
> > domains so it's all about finding the best compromise (or maybe two
> > different SKUs?).
>
> The ASR920 is slightly less deep than the MX104 (23.9cm for the ASR920
> and 24.13cm for the MX104). The 1U is the cherry on top.
>
> Mark.
>
> _______________________________________________
> juniper-nsp mailing list juniper-nsp@puck.nether.net
> https://puck.nether.net/mailman/listinfo/juniper-nsp
>
_______________________________________________
juniper-nsp mailing list juniper-nsp@puck.nether.net
https://puck.nether.net/mailman/listinfo/juniper-nsp

On 3/May/16 15:05, Saku Ytti wrote:

> I agree, MPLS to the edge is great idea. What do the boxes need to
> cost? I know someone who paid 3500EUR per MX80 (years years ago, when
> MX104 nor MX5/10/40 didn't exist) and deployed many hundred if not 1k
> of them as seamless MPLS access/edge device.

They didn't do their homework.

The MX80 is a terrible idea for an MPLS-capable Metro-E device. The baby
MX80's aren't a reasonable price to make it worth a reconsideration
either. That was Juniper trying to address that market half-heartedly.

Back then, you had two real options - the ME3600X/3800X or the
CER/CES2000. Anything else was just asking for it.


>
> MX80, MX104 are competitive against ASR9001 purely from BOM POV, as
> they are single chip fabricless devices. But still, similar box with
> pipeline/low touch asic style solution would be even cheaper, it is
> just how it is.
>
> I don't think JNPR will ever compete with Trio platform against ASR or
> ME, ACX is for that segment, but perhaps ACX is not there for all
> use-cases.

Well, the MX104 provides some competition against the ASR1000. But the
ASR1000 has moved leaps and bounds since the MX104 was a rumour, so
Juniper are falling behind again.

Against the ASR920 and ME3600X/3800X, Juniper don't have a real answer,
to be honest. The ACX is a try, but Juniper need to commit more. I just
don't know why they are letting this business go Cisco's way, but
well... I won't stick around to find out.


> What are you missing in ASR920 or ACX2k?

From my testing, the ASR920 does it all.

Your only real issue with the ASR920 is the small FIB, but we work
around that with BGP-SD.


> But I do think that
> inevitably what happened to L3 in switches will happen to MPLS, soon
> you just cannot buy non-consumer switch which does not do MPLS.

The merchant silicon has paved the way for commoditization of MPLS,
which is great.

The issue now is whether that silicon can deliver other solutions we are
used to from in-house chips. So far, my luck hasn't been great in that
department. But, I think this problem will resolve itself in time.

Mark.

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

On 3 May 2016 at 06:27, Mark Tinka <mark.tinka@seacom.mu> wrote:
> The ASR920 supports p2mp RSVP-TE LSP's as well as mLDP.
>
> Actually, we dropped the ACX purely because of lack of this.

I suspect (well hope) mLDP to die off quickly. I greatly prefer NGMVPN
with RSVP, inshallah great people at CSCO will come up with with SR
forwarding-plane for NGMVPN.

--
++ytti
_______________________________________________
juniper-nsp mailing list juniper-nsp@puck.nether.net
https://puck.nether.net/mailman/listinfo/juniper-nsp

On 3 May 2016 at 06:40, Mark Tinka <mark.tinka@seacom.mu> wrote:

> The MX80 is a terrible idea for an MPLS-capable Metro-E device. The baby
> MX80's aren't a reasonable price to make it worth a reconsideration
> either. That was Juniper trying to address that market half-heartedly.

What is reasonable price? How much less than 3500EUR it needs to cost?
Also if you look at actual CAPEX costs of running say mobile network,
the cost of IP equipment simply does not matter. It matters to your BU
and thus your budget, but that is very narrow-minded planning, if
upper management does not see that you need more budget to do it right
and it does not impact bottom line, then you didn't do your homework
when choosing your employer.

> Back then, you had two real options - the ME3600X/3800X or the
> CER/CES2000. Anything else was just asking for it.

I'm pretty sure the are MUCH happier with MX80 than they would have
been with Whales. I don't think Whales even support everything they
do, certainly didn't back then. They use NG-MVPN, seamless MPLS, L3
MPLS VPN at scale, per-vlan HQoS, RSVP-TE with affinity and list goes
on.

> Well, the MX104 provides some competition against the ASR1000. But the
> ASR1000 has moved leaps and bounds since the MX104 was a rumour, so
> Juniper are falling behind again.

I disagree. ASR1k does stateful firewalling, NAPT, crypto etc. None of
these what MX104 can do, unless you count putting another cpu in the
box with MS-MIC.
I don't think JNPR really has anything to compete against ASR1k.

MX104 competes with ASR9001, so if what you are saying is true, then
ASR9001 competes against ASR1000, which I think is also not true.

> Against the ASR920 and ME3600X/3800X, Juniper don't have a real answer,
> to be honest. The ACX is a try, but Juniper need to commit more. I just
> don't know why they are letting this business go Cisco's way, but
> well... I won't stick around to find out.

ACX is definitely their competitor, may not be there for your
application (and this may be true for some other applications, someone
may not be able to do on ASR920 what ACX2k does), but both problems
are solvable by throwing money at it.

--
++ytti
_______________________________________________
juniper-nsp mailing list juniper-nsp@puck.nether.net
https://puck.nether.net/mailman/listinfo/juniper-nsp

On 3/May/16 16:15, Saku Ytti wrote:

> I suspect (well hope) mLDP to die off quickly. I greatly prefer NGMVPN
> with RSVP, inshallah great people at CSCO will come up with with SR
> forwarding-plane for NGMVPN.

Having used both, mLDP is definitely my preferred option moving forward.
RSVP is high maintenance, but can be useful in cases where you need to
guarantee strict paths for Multicast flows.

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

On 3/May/16 16:22, Saku Ytti wrote:

> What is reasonable price? How much less than 3500EUR it needs to cost?

Oooh, it can cost less :-).


> Also if you look at actual CAPEX costs of running say mobile network,
> the cost of IP equipment simply does not matter.

Fair point - if it's a mobile network, budget for some IP routers may
not be an issue.

> It matters to your BU
> and thus your budget, but that is very narrow-minded planning, if
> upper management does not see that you need more budget to do it right
> and it does not impact bottom line, then you didn't do your homework
> when choosing your employer.

Agree.

> I'm pretty sure the are MUCH happier with MX80 than they would have
> been with Whales. I don't think Whales even support everything they
> do, certainly didn't back then. They use NG-MVPN, seamless MPLS, L3
> MPLS VPN at scale, per-vlan HQoS, RSVP-TE with affinity and list goes
> on.

Most of this supported on the ME3600X/3800X. The only one I know that is
lacking is NG-MVPN support. Cisco kept pushing Rosen our way to avoid
developing NG-MVPN on the ME3600X/3800X. Eventually, they got bored of
the platform and put all their energy into the ASR920, which has NG-MVPN
support natively.


> I disagree. ASR1k does stateful firewalling, NAPT, crypto etc. None of
> these what MX104 can do, unless you count putting another cpu in the
> box with MS-MIC.
> I don't think JNPR really has anything to compete against ASR1k.

Fair enough.

I was looking more at general routing features (we would not use an edge
router as a firewall).

The main competitor we needed for the ASR1000 was a box that could
combine both high speed Ethernet and low speed non-Ethernet interfaces
in the same chassis at a cost that makes sense. The ASR1000 does that
very well, and for now, the MX104 does that well too.

But I agree that when it comes to other high-touch features, the ASR1000
kicks the MX104 hard!


> ACX is definitely their competitor, may not be there for your
> application (and this may be true for some other applications, someone
> may not be able to do on ASR920 what ACX2k does), but both problems
> are solvable by throwing money at it.

I've asked Juniper to solve the problems on the ACX. They flat-out refused.

They won't say I never gave them a chance - more times than they deserve.

Mark.

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

Mark,

Which problems does the ACX5048 have today? I realize there are multiple
models, but I specifically am talking about the ACX5048.

Also, Comcast is deploying the ACX2200 for their 2Gbps fiber to the
home/business product. I assume that means they are low cost devices.

So ASR920 vs Juniper ACX, what features are missing that you are getting
with the Cisco that you don't get with the Juniper? I realize this is an
unfair match. The ASR920 tops out at 6 10G interfaces. The ACX5048 has 48
10G and 6 40G interfaces. Price wise, both cost about the same to activate
6 10G ports on each. On the Juniper the 6 40G ports are enabled on the base
license.

On Tue, May 3, 2016 at 3:07 PM, Mark Tinka <mark.tinka@seacom.mu> wrote:

>
>
> On 3/May/16 16:22, Saku Ytti wrote:
>
> > What is reasonable price? How much less than 3500EUR it needs to cost?
>
> Oooh, it can cost less :-).
>
>
> > Also if you look at actual CAPEX costs of running say mobile network,
> > the cost of IP equipment simply does not matter.
>
> Fair point - if it's a mobile network, budget for some IP routers may
> not be an issue.
>
> > It matters to your BU
> > and thus your budget, but that is very narrow-minded planning, if
> > upper management does not see that you need more budget to do it right
> > and it does not impact bottom line, then you didn't do your homework
> > when choosing your employer.
>
> Agree.
>
> > I'm pretty sure the are MUCH happier with MX80 than they would have
> > been with Whales. I don't think Whales even support everything they
> > do, certainly didn't back then. They use NG-MVPN, seamless MPLS, L3
> > MPLS VPN at scale, per-vlan HQoS, RSVP-TE with affinity and list goes
> > on.
>
> Most of this supported on the ME3600X/3800X. The only one I know that is
> lacking is NG-MVPN support. Cisco kept pushing Rosen our way to avoid
> developing NG-MVPN on the ME3600X/3800X. Eventually, they got bored of
> the platform and put all their energy into the ASR920, which has NG-MVPN
> support natively.
>
>
> > I disagree. ASR1k does stateful firewalling, NAPT, crypto etc. None of
> > these what MX104 can do, unless you count putting another cpu in the
> > box with MS-MIC.
> > I don't think JNPR really has anything to compete against ASR1k.
>
> Fair enough.
>
> I was looking more at general routing features (we would not use an edge
> router as a firewall).
>
> The main competitor we needed for the ASR1000 was a box that could
> combine both high speed Ethernet and low speed non-Ethernet interfaces
> in the same chassis at a cost that makes sense. The ASR1000 does that
> very well, and for now, the MX104 does that well too.
>
> But I agree that when it comes to other high-touch features, the ASR1000
> kicks the MX104 hard!
>
>
> > ACX is definitely their competitor, may not be there for your
> > application (and this may be true for some other applications, someone
> > may not be able to do on ASR920 what ACX2k does), but both problems
> > are solvable by throwing money at it.
>
> I've asked Juniper to solve the problems on the ACX. They flat-out refused.
>
> They won't say I never gave them a chance - more times than they deserve.
>
> Mark.
>
> _______________________________________________
> juniper-nsp mailing list juniper-nsp@puck.nether.net
> https://puck.nether.net/mailman/listinfo/juniper-nsp
>
_______________________________________________
juniper-nsp mailing list juniper-nsp@puck.nether.net
https://puck.nether.net/mailman/listinfo/juniper-nsp

On 5/May/16 03:08, Colton Conor wrote:

> Mark,
>
> Which problems does the ACX5048 have today? I realize there are
> multiple models, but I specifically am talking about the ACX5048.

The ACX5000 comes in two models - the 48-port and 96-port.

We dropped the ACX5000 because of lack of NG-MVPN support, which was
down to a lack of hardware support in the Broadcom chip.

Some members of this list have had other issues for some basic features
that work well on Trio chips. I'd suggest running through the archives.

I was not planning on discovering what else the box won't do, so it was
never a consideration for us. I suppose we shall hear more as other
operators deploy it in the coming months/years.


>
> Also, Comcast is deploying the ACX2200 for their 2Gbps fiber to the
> home/business product. I assume that means they are low cost devices.

I don't know how the ACX2200 is priced, to be honest.

It does not look dense enough to be deployed as a high speed FTTH access
box. CPE, perhaps?


>
> So ASR920 vs Juniper ACX, what features are missing that you are
> getting with the Cisco that you don't get with the Juniper? I realize
> this is an unfair match.

For us, as above.


> The ASR920 tops out at 6 10G interfaces. The ACX5048 has 48 10G and 6
> 40G interfaces. Price wise, both cost about the same to activate 6 10G
> ports on each. On the Juniper the 6 40G ports are enabled on the base
> license.

In this space, I am not too fussed with interface matrix.

The majority of our Metro-E customers are going to be buying
up-to-a-Gig-E ports, which the ASR920 does very well.

Customers that want 10Gbps or higher can be transported over DWDM to my
nearest high capacity PoP. Cheaper, in the long run, than trying to find
a Metro-E box with high-density 10Gbps ports + features at a good price
in 2016.

Suffice it to say, when Cisco were developing the ASR920, merchant
silicon was an option. But when they looked at all the limitations that
could bring (as at 2013), the case was made to build the platform on an
in-house chip, which they did brilliantly and cheaply.

Mark.

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

As I recall, vpls bgp ad w/ldp sig worked interop between all these....

Cisco ASR9K
Cisco ASR920 (2 flavors as I recall)
Cisco ASR903
Cisco ME3600
Juniper MX104
Juniper ACX5048

... all those in same vpls elan

Currently i'm seeing an occasional issue with ACX5048 and ASR9k. what I'm
seeing is sometimes, not all the time, the asr9k of the elan pw side will be
down. clear mpls ldp neighbor (x.x.x.x ip of acx) seconds later vpls starts
working and stays good. This occurs when I make a change on the acx.
...like reconfig of acx vpls construct. Jtac didn't know why. (I owe them
the var log files from traces) Cisco tac says upgrade my 4.1.2 to 4.3.4 or
5.1.3 but I see bugs with vpls in 5.1.3 anyway... so dunno
...this vpls test is going between about 25 live pe's right now... the acx
is a test pe in that 25-PE elan. About (4) ARE 9k's and about (20) others
are me3600's. the 3600's do not have this down'd pw issue towards acx....
only the (4) 9k's do.

I know what to do when it happens so I'm moving forward with the acx5048 and
going live with a couple of them

My l3vpn mpls vrf (routing-instance) on ACX is working fine... i learned
that it's different than cisco whereas static and direct connect routes are
automagically advertised into the vpl .... so I wonder if this is what you
mean by auto-export. If so, yes it's working. (I'm fairly new to Juniper,
and been doing cisco for several years and am accustomed to cisco mpls l3vpn
requiring redistribution of static and connected routes explicitly
configured)
... what do you mean by "worked on tagged link?" if you mean am I tagging
the PE-CE handoff then the answer is yes... I get tagged frames on PE-CE, I
put those into a vlan, I put irb on top of vlan and I vrf (routing-instance)
the irb. Done. Works. I also added ip-helper (cisco speak for dhcp relay)
also into that RI... which caused me to learn about access/access-internal
routes... wow, /32's for every host advertised throughout the vpn !
"......route-suppression access-internal" fixed that.

I did a quick ELINE EVPL (mef-speak for vlan- based pw) which I think is
what you mean by ldp-based l2circuit... ( I did set protocols l2circuit
neighbor 1.1.1.1 interface ge-0/0/38.0 virtual-circuit-id 999 , ge-0/0/38.0
has encap vlan-ccc vlan-id 17 and family ccc) and did this to the other side
which was a cisco me3600 ( I need to test 9k soon and will ) ...me3600 was a
interface with service instance encap dot1q 17 rewrite sym pop thing and
xconnect 1.1.1.2 999 encap mpls) .... works... done.

I want/need to test mef eline epl (port based l2circuit to carry all vlans)

I want/need to test mef etree eptree/evptree since I support some of that
too in my network, but not as much as eline and elan

Acx label stack ? dunno.... did I read 3 somewhere ? don't recall....

Snmp counter on vlan or subint ? dunno yet but will probably soon find out
as solarwinds is watching a couple of my deployed acx's... check back
later.

- Aaron


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

Le 06/05/2016 à 19:17, Aaron a écrit :
> As I recall, vpls bgp ad w/ldp sig worked interop between all these....
>
> Cisco ASR9K
> Cisco ASR920 (2 flavors as I recall)
> Cisco ASR903
> Cisco ME3600
> Juniper MX104
> Juniper ACX5048
>
> ... all those in same vpls elan
Cool.

> My l3vpn mpls vrf (routing-instance) on ACX is working fine... i learned
> that it's different than cisco whereas static and direct connect routes are
> automagically advertised into the vpl .... so I wonder if this is what you
> mean by auto-export. If so, yes it's working. (I'm fairly new to Juniper,
> and been doing cisco for several years and am accustomed to cisco mpls l3vpn
> requiring redistribution of static and connected routes explicitly
> configured)

If you use 'vrf-target' stanza, by default all route with these extended
community will be imported and exported.
The auto-export 'stanza' allow to do local route leaking between two (or
more) vrfs.
This is this special feature that do not work on EX4550 which force do
to strange things.
> ... what do you mean by "worked on tagged link?" if you mean am I tagging
> the PE-CE handoff then the answer is yes... I get tagged frames on PE-CE, I
> put those into a vlan, I put irb on top of vlan and I vrf (routing-instance)
> the irb. Done. Works.
I mean using a tagged link between P-PE. This is not recommended and I
prefer back to back untag link for the core, but in some case it can be
helpful.


> I did a quick ELINE EVPL (mef-speak for vlan- based pw) which I think is
> what you mean by ldp-based l2circuit... ( I did set protocols l2circuit
> neighbor 1.1.1.1 interface ge-0/0/38.0 virtual-circuit-id 999 , ge-0/0/38.0
> has encap vlan-ccc vlan-id 17 and family ccc) and did this to the other side
> which was a cisco me3600 ( I need to test 9k soon and will ) ...me3600 was a
> interface with service instance encap dot1q 17 rewrite sym pop thing and
> xconnect 1.1.1.2 999 encap mpls) .... works... done.
OK cool.
> I want/need to test mef eline epl (port based l2circuit to carry all vlans)
>
> I want/need to test mef etree eptree/evptree since I support some of that
> too in my network, but not as much as eline and elan
>
> Acx label stack ? dunno.... did I read 3 somewhere ? don't recall....
>
> Snmp counter on vlan or subint ? dunno yet but will probably soon find out
> as solarwinds is watching a couple of my deployed acx's... check back
> later.
>
>
Thks for all theses feedbacks.

--
Raphael Mazelier

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

Thanks Raphael,

My core links are untagged typically... in rare case I'll tag, and it
doesn't seem to be a problem, I haven't done that on acx5048 yet

Ok I did MEF EPL (eline port based carrying any and all vlans, tagged and
untagged...) works. I shut and deactivate core bgp for this test to prove
that it's purely igp, mpls, ldp to make it work. Ce-ce pings and
l2protocols seem to be fine ( I tested cdp and stp for CE to CE and it's
fine )...of course the config's below are the MPLS PE's... the ce's I
mention are not shown anywhere here.


---3600

interface GigabitEthernet0/15

switchport trunk allowed vlan none

switchport mode trunk

load-interval 30

service instance 1 ethernet

encapsulation default

l2protocol forward

xconnect 10.101.12.245 999 encapsulation mpls

--- ACX5048

set protocols l2circuit neighbor 10.101.12.251 interface ge-0/0/38.0
virtual-circuit-id 999

set interfaces ge-0/0/38 encapsulation ethernet-ccc

set interfaces ge-0/0/38 unit 0 family ccc

- Aaron


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

Aaron,

Just wondering if you company compared any other products from other
vendors against the ACX5048? Is there anything else on the market with this
high of port count, for this low of a price, with this amount of features?

On Mon, May 9, 2016 at 11:52 AM, Aaron <aaron1@gvtc.com> wrote:

> Thanks Raphael,
>
> My core links are untagged typically... in rare case I'll tag, and it
> doesn't seem to be a problem, I haven't done that on acx5048 yet
>
> Ok I did MEF EPL (eline port based carrying any and all vlans, tagged and
> untagged...) works. I shut and deactivate core bgp for this test to prove
> that it's purely igp, mpls, ldp to make it work. Ce-ce pings and
> l2protocols seem to be fine ( I tested cdp and stp for CE to CE and it's
> fine )...of course the config's below are the MPLS PE's... the ce's I
> mention are not shown anywhere here.
>
>
> ---3600
>
> interface GigabitEthernet0/15
>
> switchport trunk allowed vlan none
>
> switchport mode trunk
>
> load-interval 30
>
> service instance 1 ethernet
>
> encapsulation default
>
> l2protocol forward
>
> xconnect 10.101.12.245 999 encapsulation mpls
>
> --- ACX5048
>
> set protocols l2circuit neighbor 10.101.12.251 interface ge-0/0/38.0
> virtual-circuit-id 999
>
> set interfaces ge-0/0/38 encapsulation ethernet-ccc
>
> set interfaces ge-0/0/38 unit 0 family ccc
>
> - Aaron
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> juniper-nsp mailing list juniper-nsp@puck.nether.net
> https://puck.nether.net/mailman/listinfo/juniper-nsp
>
_______________________________________________
juniper-nsp mailing list juniper-nsp@puck.nether.net
https://puck.nether.net/mailman/listinfo/juniper-nsp

You might be able to buy some off the shelf (E.g. Acton or quanta etc)
white box Trident 2 box and look IP Infusion for an OS on it. It may be
cost competitive and have almost all of the features..
On May 10, 2016 8:31 AM, "Colton Conor" <colton.conor@gmail.com> wrote:

> Aaron,
>
> Just wondering if you company compared any other products from other
> vendors against the ACX5048? Is there anything else on the market with this
> high of port count, for this low of a price, with this amount of features?
>
> On Mon, May 9, 2016 at 11:52 AM, Aaron <aaron1@gvtc.com> wrote:
>
> > Thanks Raphael,
> >
> > My core links are untagged typically... in rare case I'll tag, and it
> > doesn't seem to be a problem, I haven't done that on acx5048 yet
> >
> > Ok I did MEF EPL (eline port based carrying any and all vlans, tagged and
> > untagged...) works. I shut and deactivate core bgp for this test to prove
> > that it's purely igp, mpls, ldp to make it work. Ce-ce pings and
> > l2protocols seem to be fine ( I tested cdp and stp for CE to CE and it's
> > fine )...of course the config's below are the MPLS PE's... the ce's I
> > mention are not shown anywhere here.
> >
> >
> > ---3600
> >
> > interface GigabitEthernet0/15
> >
> > switchport trunk allowed vlan none
> >
> > switchport mode trunk
> >
> > load-interval 30
> >
> > service instance 1 ethernet
> >
> > encapsulation default
> >
> > l2protocol forward
> >
> > xconnect 10.101.12.245 999 encapsulation mpls
> >
> > --- ACX5048
> >
> > set protocols l2circuit neighbor 10.101.12.251 interface ge-0/0/38.0
> > virtual-circuit-id 999
> >
> > set interfaces ge-0/0/38 encapsulation ethernet-ccc
> >
> > set interfaces ge-0/0/38 unit 0 family ccc
> >
> > - Aaron
> >
> >
> > _______________________________________________
> > juniper-nsp mailing list juniper-nsp@puck.nether.net
> > https://puck.nether.net/mailman/listinfo/juniper-nsp
> >
> _______________________________________________
> juniper-nsp mailing list juniper-nsp@puck.nether.net
> https://puck.nether.net/mailman/listinfo/juniper-nsp
>
_______________________________________________
juniper-nsp mailing list juniper-nsp@puck.nether.net
https://puck.nether.net/mailman/listinfo/juniper-nsp

On 10/May/16 15:30, Colton Conor wrote:

> Aaron,
>
> Just wondering if you company compared any other products from other
> vendors against the ACX5048? Is there anything else on the market with this
> high of port count, for this low of a price, with this amount of features?

IMHO, no.

The ACX5000 is the only box that supports dual-rate 1Gbps/10Gbps ports
that has "some level of" IP/MPLS feature set at a palatable price.

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

Hi Colton, first please understand that my motivation was to replace ~40 cisco me3600’s eventually… we have deployed our cisco me3600’s as mpls pe’s with eline, elan, etree in eline pw ldp flavors and bgp ad w/ldp sig vpls flavors… and vpnv4/6 (junos speak inet/inet6) for mpls l3vpn’s… we needed more 10 gig interfaces as our FTTH subs were consuming lots of bw. So I wanted an mpls edge box about 1 or 2 U high around the same price as the ME3600’s it would replace and bunches of 10 gig interface with some 40/100 gig uplinks if possible.



we compared...



- Juniper ACX5048 – in lab

- Juniper MX104 – in lab

- Juniper EX4550 – in lab

- Cisco ASR903 – in lab

- Cisco ASR9001 – on paper

- Cisco ASR903 – in lab

- Cisco ASR920 (2 versions – in lab

- Cisco NCS5001 (skywarp) – in lab



I think the closest thing to the ACX5048 was the Cisco NCS5001…. But it was a dog in the lab trial. Seriously, I had LLDP global config freeze up my ssh/telnet sessions… then l2vpn had serious issues and so did l3vpn. That ncs5k was not ready from prime time in the state (hw/xr sw) that I had it in.



We went with the acx5048. We bought (14) of them



I just spent the last few days testing various mpls l2vpn architectures so that I can confidently proceed with installing them. (I was told they support lots of stuff and I proved out *some* of it last fall, but I needed to get more experience on it… now I feel a bit better with the eline, elan, etree ideas if have now introducing the acx5048 into my mpls cloud with other 9k’s and me3600’s.



Are there other mpls pe’s out there on the market ? probably so…. I didn’t have time to test them all



-Aaron









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

Tim,

Do you use IP Infusion software today? I have never heard of them, but I
like the software feature set I see on their website with MPLS and MEF
features. However, I doubt the white box plus their software will be any
less than the Juniper solution, but I could be surprised.

On Tue, May 10, 2016 at 8:46 AM, Tim Jackson <jackson.tim@gmail.com> wrote:

> You might be able to buy some off the shelf (E.g. Acton or quanta etc)
> white box Trident 2 box and look IP Infusion for an OS on it. It may be
> cost competitive and have almost all of the features..
> On May 10, 2016 8:31 AM, "Colton Conor" <colton.conor@gmail.com> wrote:
>
>> Aaron,
>>
>> Just wondering if you company compared any other products from other
>> vendors against the ACX5048? Is there anything else on the market with
>> this
>> high of port count, for this low of a price, with this amount of features?
>>
>> On Mon, May 9, 2016 at 11:52 AM, Aaron <aaron1@gvtc.com> wrote:
>>
>> > Thanks Raphael,
>> >
>> > My core links are untagged typically... in rare case I'll tag, and it
>> > doesn't seem to be a problem, I haven't done that on acx5048 yet
>> >
>> > Ok I did MEF EPL (eline port based carrying any and all vlans, tagged
>> and
>> > untagged...) works. I shut and deactivate core bgp for this test to
>> prove
>> > that it's purely igp, mpls, ldp to make it work. Ce-ce pings and
>> > l2protocols seem to be fine ( I tested cdp and stp for CE to CE and it's
>> > fine )...of course the config's below are the MPLS PE's... the ce's I
>> > mention are not shown anywhere here.
>> >
>> >
>> > ---3600
>> >
>> > interface GigabitEthernet0/15
>> >
>> > switchport trunk allowed vlan none
>> >
>> > switchport mode trunk
>> >
>> > load-interval 30
>> >
>> > service instance 1 ethernet
>> >
>> > encapsulation default
>> >
>> > l2protocol forward
>> >
>> > xconnect 10.101.12.245 999 encapsulation mpls
>> >
>> > --- ACX5048
>> >
>> > set protocols l2circuit neighbor 10.101.12.251 interface ge-0/0/38.0
>> > virtual-circuit-id 999
>> >
>> > set interfaces ge-0/0/38 encapsulation ethernet-ccc
>> >
>> > set interfaces ge-0/0/38 unit 0 family ccc
>> >
>> > - Aaron
>> >
>> >
>> > _______________________________________________
>> > juniper-nsp mailing list juniper-nsp@puck.nether.net
>> > https://puck.nether.net/mailman/listinfo/juniper-nsp
>> >
>> _______________________________________________
>> juniper-nsp mailing list juniper-nsp@puck.nether.net
>> https://puck.nether.net/mailman/listinfo/juniper-nsp
>>
>
_______________________________________________
juniper-nsp mailing list juniper-nsp@puck.nether.net
https://puck.nether.net/mailman/listinfo/juniper-nsp

Aaron,

Thanks for the reply. Sounds like you compared the Juniper and Cisco
solutions, and landed on the Juniper ACX 5048. I guess my question is,
besides Juniper and Cisco, are there any other vendors worth looking into
that could realistically compete with the ACX5048? Sounds like your network
today is Cisco and Juniper only for routing which is fine and the standard,
but I am wondering what other options there are in this market.

There are ton's of other plain ethernet switches on the market with this
same Trident II chipset with 48 10G ports and 6 40G ports. But the control
plane and software side is what worries me compared to the Juniper
solution. Lots of whitebox solutions, but not sure if the software is there
from these open source third party network operating systems.

Anything from Ciena, Huawei, ALU, etc? Brocade doesn't have anything in
this price point or port count.

On Tue, May 10, 2016 at 11:11 AM, Aaron <aaron1@gvtc.com> wrote:

> Hi Colton, first please understand that my motivation was to replace ~40
> cisco me3600’s eventually… we have deployed our cisco me3600’s as mpls pe’s
> with eline, elan, etree in eline pw ldp flavors and bgp ad w/ldp sig vpls
> flavors… and vpnv4/6 (junos speak inet/inet6) for mpls l3vpn’s… we needed
> more 10 gig interfaces as our FTTH subs were consuming lots of bw. So I
> wanted an mpls edge box about 1 or 2 U high around the same price as the
> ME3600’s it would replace and bunches of 10 gig interface with some 40/100
> gig uplinks if possible.
>
>
>
> we compared...
>
>
>
> - Juniper ACX5048 – in lab
>
> - Juniper MX104 – in lab
>
> - Juniper EX4550 – in lab
>
> - Cisco ASR903 – in lab
>
> - Cisco ASR9001 – on paper
>
> - Cisco ASR903 – in lab
>
> - Cisco ASR920 (2 versions – in lab
>
> - Cisco NCS5001 (skywarp) – in lab
>
>
>
> I think the closest thing to the ACX5048 was the Cisco NCS5001…. But it
> was a dog in the lab trial. Seriously, I had LLDP global config freeze up
> my ssh/telnet sessions… then l2vpn had serious issues and so did l3vpn.
> That ncs5k was not ready from prime time in the state (hw/xr sw) that I had
> it in.
>
>
>
> We went with the acx5048. We bought (14) of them
>
>
>
> I just spent the last few days testing various mpls l2vpn architectures so
> that I can confidently proceed with installing them. (I was told they
> support lots of stuff and I proved out **some** of it last fall, but I
> needed to get more experience on it… now I feel a bit better with the
> eline, elan, etree ideas if have now introducing the acx5048 into my mpls
> cloud with other 9k’s and me3600’s.
>
>
>
> Are there other mpls pe’s out there on the market ? probably so…. I
> didn’t have time to test them all
>
>
>
> -Aaron
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
_______________________________________________
juniper-nsp mailing list juniper-nsp@puck.nether.net
https://puck.nether.net/mailman/listinfo/juniper-nsp

I've never used their software in production, but I have been looking
at it for some 100G ToR switches.. The featureset is awesome, but I
can't really speak to how well the software works as I haven't
received any demo gear actually running it yet..

I will say that a 32x100G Tomahawk + their SW is less (by a little)
than I was paying for Trident II boxes (QFX5100/EX4600) from Juniper..
I don't know what ACX5k costs, though.

--
Tim

On Tue, May 10, 2016 at 12:16 PM, Colton Conor <colton.conor@gmail.com> wrote:
> Tim,
>
> Do you use IP Infusion software today? I have never heard of them, but I
> like the software feature set I see on their website with MPLS and MEF
> features. However, I doubt the white box plus their software will be any
> less than the Juniper solution, but I could be surprised.
>
> On Tue, May 10, 2016 at 8:46 AM, Tim Jackson <jackson.tim@gmail.com> wrote:
>>
>> You might be able to buy some off the shelf (E.g. Acton or quanta etc)
>> white box Trident 2 box and look IP Infusion for an OS on it. It may be cost
>> competitive and have almost all of the features..
>>
>> On May 10, 2016 8:31 AM, "Colton Conor" <colton.conor@gmail.com> wrote:
>>>
>>> Aaron,
>>>
>>> Just wondering if you company compared any other products from other
>>> vendors against the ACX5048? Is there anything else on the market with
>>> this
>>> high of port count, for this low of a price, with this amount of
>>> features?
>>>
>>> On Mon, May 9, 2016 at 11:52 AM, Aaron <aaron1@gvtc.com> wrote:
>>>
>>> > Thanks Raphael,
>>> >
>>> > My core links are untagged typically... in rare case I'll tag, and it
>>> > doesn't seem to be a problem, I haven't done that on acx5048 yet
>>> >
>>> > Ok I did MEF EPL (eline port based carrying any and all vlans, tagged
>>> > and
>>> > untagged...) works. I shut and deactivate core bgp for this test to
>>> > prove
>>> > that it's purely igp, mpls, ldp to make it work. Ce-ce pings and
>>> > l2protocols seem to be fine ( I tested cdp and stp for CE to CE and
>>> > it's
>>> > fine )...of course the config's below are the MPLS PE's... the ce's I
>>> > mention are not shown anywhere here.
>>> >
>>> >
>>> > ---3600
>>> >
>>> > interface GigabitEthernet0/15
>>> >
>>> > switchport trunk allowed vlan none
>>> >
>>> > switchport mode trunk
>>> >
>>> > load-interval 30
>>> >
>>> > service instance 1 ethernet
>>> >
>>> > encapsulation default
>>> >
>>> > l2protocol forward
>>> >
>>> > xconnect 10.101.12.245 999 encapsulation mpls
>>> >
>>> > --- ACX5048
>>> >
>>> > set protocols l2circuit neighbor 10.101.12.251 interface ge-0/0/38.0
>>> > virtual-circuit-id 999
>>> >
>>> > set interfaces ge-0/0/38 encapsulation ethernet-ccc
>>> >
>>> > set interfaces ge-0/0/38 unit 0 family ccc
>>> >
>>> > - Aaron
>>> >
>>> >
>>> > _______________________________________________
>>> > juniper-nsp mailing list juniper-nsp@puck.nether.net
>>> > https://puck.nether.net/mailman/listinfo/juniper-nsp
>>> >
>>> _______________________________________________
>>> juniper-nsp mailing list juniper-nsp@puck.nether.net
>>> https://puck.nether.net/mailman/listinfo/juniper-nsp
>
>
_______________________________________________
juniper-nsp mailing list juniper-nsp@puck.nether.net
https://puck.nether.net/mailman/listinfo/juniper-nsp

Dunno, the mail list might know



- aaron





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

On 10/May/16 19:18, Colton Conor wrote:

>
> Anything from Ciena, Huawei, ALU, etc? Brocade doesn't have anything in
> this price point or port count.

Brocade do, but no 10Gbps port density.

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

2016-05-10 22:05 GMT+02:00 Mark Tinka <mark.tinka@seacom.mu>:

>
>
> On 10/May/16 19:18, Colton Conor wrote:
>
> >
> > Anything from Ciena, Huawei, ALU, etc? Brocade doesn't have anything in
> > this price point or port count.
>
> Brocade do, but no 10Gbps port density.
>


As I stated last week, such a model might be available some day.

Best regards.



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



--
Youssef BENGELLOUN-ZAHR
_______________________________________________
juniper-nsp mailing list juniper-nsp@puck.nether.net
https://puck.nether.net/mailman/listinfo/juniper-nsp

I have been curious about the cisco catalyst 6800 line… seems that the 6840 might fit this realm of smaller mpls pe… not sure of price…



http://www.cisco.com/c/en/us/products/collateral/switches/catalyst-6840-x-switch/datasheet-c78-734470.html





- Aaron

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

On 10/05/16 21:47, Aaron wrote:
> I have been curious about the cisco catalyst 6800 line… seems that the 6840 might fit this realm of smaller mpls pe… not sure of price…

The Cat6k including 6840 can certainly do a fair number of MPLS
features, we use their older brother (6880, sup2T) and for a little
while longer predecessor (sup720) as MPLS PE in L3VPN (inc. 6vPE), MVPN
and some small amount of L2VPN (mainly EoMPLS)

IIUC the layer2 and MVPN stuff is lagging the state of the art quite a
bit on that software train, which might be an issue for you.

The per-port cost will be relatively high compared to a merchant
silicon-based device, but the features tend to be a bit better. Port
density is also kind of low on the cat6k sadly.

They also run plain old IOS, with it's paucity of modern comforts (like
any form of API, or transactional commits, etc.). Slightly weedy CPU,
especially if you use Netflow on them (do not get me started...)
_______________________________________________
juniper-nsp mailing list juniper-nsp@puck.nether.net
https://puck.nether.net/mailman/listinfo/juniper-nsp

On 11/May/16 09:48, Phil Mayers wrote:

>
> The Cat6k including 6840 can certainly do a fair number of MPLS
> features, we use their older brother (6880, sup2T) and for a little
> while longer predecessor (sup720) as MPLS PE in L3VPN (inc. 6vPE),
> MVPN and some small amount of L2VPN (mainly EoMPLS)
>
> IIUC the layer2 and MVPN stuff is lagging the state of the art quite a
> bit on that software train, which might be an issue for you.
>
> The per-port cost will be relatively high compared to a merchant
> silicon-based device, but the features tend to be a bit better. Port
> density is also kind of low on the cat6k sadly.
>
> They also run plain old IOS, with it's paucity of modern comforts
> (like any form of API, or transactional commits, etc.). Slightly weedy
> CPU, especially if you use Netflow on them (do not get me started...)

Egress policing and other advanced QoS features also used to be a big
problem on this platform and its cousins, but I believe this has since
been fixed for the SUP-2T as well as the current generation boxes in
this portfolio.

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

> Mark Tinka
> Sent: Saturday, April 30, 2016 10:50 AM
> > Besides Cisco and Juniper solutions discussed, what else is out there
> > that has more than 4 10G ports with these feature sets?
>
> Look at Brocade.
>
> I'm not sure what they are doing now, but back then, they had a solid 1U
> Metro-E box. We never bought it because we wanted to keep two vendors
> only in our network. Technically, the box was/is sound. But I'd definitely buy
> them for some specific use cases we are working on.
>
Brocade is using Broadcom chips as well right? Or are they using their own chips in some of the boxes?

adam



Adam Vitkovsky
IP Engineer

T: 0333 006 5936
E: Adam.Vitkovsky@gamma.co.uk
W: www.gamma.co.uk

This is an email from Gamma Telecom Ltd, trading as “Gamma”. The contents of this email are confidential to the ordinary user of the email address to which it was addressed. This email is not intended to create any legal relationship. No one else may place any reliance upon it, or copy or forward all or any of it in any form (unless otherwise notified). If you receive this email in error, please accept our apologies, we would be obliged if you would telephone our postmaster on +44 (0) 808 178 9652 or email postmaster@gamma.co.uk

Gamma Telecom Limited, a company incorporated in England and Wales, with limited liability, with registered number 04340834, and whose registered office is at 5 Fleet Place London EC4M 7RD and whose principal place of business is at Kings House, Kings Road West, Newbury, Berkshire, RG14 5BY.


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

On 11/May/16 18:04, Adam Vitkovsky wrote:

> Brocade is using Broadcom chips as well right? Or are they using their own chips in some of the boxes?

The last time I tested the NetIron's, it was their own silicon.

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

Aaron,

Have you tested any of the OAM features on the ACX5048 like Y.1564,
802.3ah, 802.1ag, Y.1731, Two-Way Active Measurement Protocol (TWAMP) and
RFC2544? Do you have smaller ACX's like the 2200 connected to the ACX5048?
Are you using Juniper MX routers in your network as well?

On Tue, May 10, 2016 at 11:11 AM, Aaron <aaron1@gvtc.com> wrote:

> Hi Colton, first please understand that my motivation was to replace ~40
> cisco me3600’s eventually… we have deployed our cisco me3600’s as mpls pe’s
> with eline, elan, etree in eline pw ldp flavors and bgp ad w/ldp sig vpls
> flavors… and vpnv4/6 (junos speak inet/inet6) for mpls l3vpn’s… we needed
> more 10 gig interfaces as our FTTH subs were consuming lots of bw. So I
> wanted an mpls edge box about 1 or 2 U high around the same price as the
> ME3600’s it would replace and bunches of 10 gig interface with some 40/100
> gig uplinks if possible.
>
>
>
> we compared...
>
>
>
> - Juniper ACX5048 – in lab
>
> - Juniper MX104 – in lab
>
> - Juniper EX4550 – in lab
>
> - Cisco ASR903 – in lab
>
> - Cisco ASR9001 – on paper
>
> - Cisco ASR903 – in lab
>
> - Cisco ASR920 (2 versions – in lab
>
> - Cisco NCS5001 (skywarp) – in lab
>
>
>
> I think the closest thing to the ACX5048 was the Cisco NCS5001…. But it
> was a dog in the lab trial. Seriously, I had LLDP global config freeze up
> my ssh/telnet sessions… then l2vpn had serious issues and so did l3vpn.
> That ncs5k was not ready from prime time in the state (hw/xr sw) that I had
> it in.
>
>
>
> We went with the acx5048. We bought (14) of them
>
>
>
> I just spent the last few days testing various mpls l2vpn architectures so
> that I can confidently proceed with installing them. (I was told they
> support lots of stuff and I proved out **some** of it last fall, but I
> needed to get more experience on it… now I feel a bit better with the
> eline, elan, etree ideas if have now introducing the acx5048 into my mpls
> cloud with other 9k’s and me3600’s.
>
>
>
> Are there other mpls pe’s out there on the market ? probably so…. I
> didn’t have time to test them all
>
>
>
> -Aaron
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
_______________________________________________
juniper-nsp mailing list juniper-nsp@puck.nether.net
https://puck.nether.net/mailman/listinfo/juniper-nsp

Hi Colton,



Q1 - Have you tested any of the OAM features on the ACX5048 like Y.1564, 802.3ah, 802.1ag, Y.1731, Two-Way Active Measurement Protocol (TWAMP) and RFC2544?



A1 – no, but we do have a CFM effort underway for getting to know CFM better and understand how to architect network-wide CFM domains/levels, mips, meps, up, down all that stuff…. So perhaps later I would be able to speak to this.



Q2 - Do you have smaller ACX's like the 2200 connected to the ACX5048?



A2 – I have no other acx’s. I only have acsx5048’s. (I do have some ex4550’s virtual chassis’d together as ToR switches in my 2 small datacenters and they are not connected to acx5048’s…. at least at the moment)



Q3 - Are you using Juniper MX routers in your network as well?



A3 – not at the moment. Only in the lab. I have one mx104 testing cgnat. If I decide on the juniper solution for cgnat then I might go with mx104 or mx240/480 with ms-mpc licensed npu’s. (I have vMX in GNS3 virtual environment)



….who knows, maybe when we begin planning the increase of our 20 gbps asr9k cisco ring, we may consider mx480’s there too.



-Aaron



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

Wondering why no one mentioned ASR903 with RSP3.

It can do 100GE per slot (8x10Ge/2x40GE/1x100GE) and there are 6 slots.
Two RSPs two PSUs (only FAN tray is single point of failure).
And feature wise it should do everything that ASR920 does.

Compared to Juniper the only drawback is the FIB scale which apparently is just 192,512 IPv4 routes.
-I guess the reason behind this is that if they would increase that it would compete with ASR9K line.


adam











Adam Vitkovsky
IP Engineer

T: 0333 006 5936
E: Adam.Vitkovsky@gamma.co.uk
W: www.gamma.co.uk

This is an email from Gamma Telecom Ltd, trading as “Gamma”. The contents of this email are confidential to the ordinary user of the email address to which it was addressed. This email is not intended to create any legal relationship. No one else may place any reliance upon it, or copy or forward all or any of it in any form (unless otherwise notified). If you receive this email in error, please accept our apologies, we would be obliged if you would telephone our postmaster on +44 (0) 808 178 9652 or email postmaster@gamma.co.uk

Gamma Telecom Limited, a company incorporated in England and Wales, with limited liability, with registered number 04340834, and whose registered office is at 5 Fleet Place London EC4M 7RD and whose principal place of business is at Kings House, Kings Road West, Newbury, Berkshire, RG14 5BY.


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

Adam,

I think because of the price point of the ASR903 just is not there. These
Juniper ACX5048's can be bought for under $5,000 new. The ASR903 with a
hefty discount was in the $15k range with like one line card. Even if you
fully populated the 903 it wouldn't have the same amount of ports as a
ACX5048. It would have more redundancy, and the ability to have a 100G
uplinks however.

On Thu, May 12, 2016 at 8:02 AM, Adam Vitkovsky <Adam.Vitkovsky@gamma.co.uk>
wrote:

> Wondering why no one mentioned ASR903 with RSP3.
>
> It can do 100GE per slot (8x10Ge/2x40GE/1x100GE) and there are 6 slots.
> Two RSPs two PSUs (only FAN tray is single point of failure).
> And feature wise it should do everything that ASR920 does.
>
> Compared to Juniper the only drawback is the FIB scale which apparently is
> just 192,512 IPv4 routes.
> -I guess the reason behind this is that if they would increase that it
> would compete with ASR9K line.
>
>
> adam
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> Adam Vitkovsky
> IP Engineer
>
> T: 0333 006 5936
> E: Adam.Vitkovsky@gamma.co.uk
> W: www.gamma.co.uk
>
> This is an email from Gamma Telecom Ltd, trading as “Gamma”. The contents
> of this email are confidential to the ordinary user of the email address to
> which it was addressed. This email is not intended to create any legal
> relationship. No one else may place any reliance upon it, or copy or
> forward all or any of it in any form (unless otherwise notified). If you
> receive this email in error, please accept our apologies, we would be
> obliged if you would telephone our postmaster on +44 (0) 808 178 9652 or
> email postmaster@gamma.co.uk
>
> Gamma Telecom Limited, a company incorporated in England and Wales, with
> limited liability, with registered number 04340834, and whose registered
> office is at 5 Fleet Place London EC4M 7RD and whose principal place of
> business is at Kings House, Kings Road West, Newbury, Berkshire, RG14 5BY.
>
>
>
_______________________________________________
juniper-nsp mailing list juniper-nsp@puck.nether.net
https://puck.nether.net/mailman/listinfo/juniper-nsp