Mailing List Archive

EX4600 Vs QFX 5100 VS ACX 5048
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
Re: EX4600 Vs QFX 5100 VS ACX 5048 [ In reply to ]
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
Re: EX4600 Vs QFX 5100 VS ACX 5048 [ In reply to ]
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
Re: EX4600 Vs QFX 5100 VS ACX 5048 [ In reply to ]
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
Re: EX4600 Vs QFX 5100 VS ACX 5048 [ In reply to ]
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
Re: EX4600 Vs QFX 5100 VS ACX 5048 [ In reply to ]
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
Re: EX4600 Vs QFX 5100 VS ACX 5048 [ In reply to ]
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
Re: EX4600 Vs QFX 5100 VS ACX 5048 [ In reply to ]
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
Re: EX4600 Vs QFX 5100 VS ACX 5048 [ In reply to ]
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
Re: EX4600 Vs QFX 5100 VS ACX 5048 [ In reply to ]
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
Re: EX4600 Vs QFX 5100 VS ACX 5048 [ In reply to ]
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
Re: EX4600 Vs QFX 5100 VS ACX 5048 [ In reply to ]
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
Re: EX4600 Vs QFX 5100 VS ACX 5048 [ In reply to ]
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
Re: EX4600 Vs QFX 5100 VS ACX 5048 [ In reply to ]
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
Re: EX4600 Vs QFX 5100 VS ACX 5048 [ In reply to ]
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
Re: EX4600 Vs QFX 5100 VS ACX 5048 [ In reply to ]
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
Re: EX4600 Vs QFX 5100 VS ACX 5048 [ In reply to ]
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
Re: EX4600 Vs QFX 5100 VS ACX 5048 [ In reply to ]
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
Re: EX4600 Vs QFX 5100 VS ACX 5048 [ In reply to ]
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
Re: EX4600 Vs QFX 5100 VS ACX 5048 [ In reply to ]
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
Re: EX4600 Vs QFX 5100 VS ACX 5048 [ In reply to ]
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
Re: EX4600 Vs QFX 5100 VS ACX 5048 [ In reply to ]
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
Re: EX4600 Vs QFX 5100 VS ACX 5048 [ In reply to ]
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
Re: EX4600 Vs QFX 5100 VS ACX 5048 [ In reply to ]
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
Re: EX4600 Vs QFX 5100 VS ACX 5048 [ In reply to ]
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

1 2 3  View All