Mailing List Archive

Re: [SPF:Passed] Re: EX4600 Vs QFX 5100 VS ACX 5048
On 3/May/16 15:36, Colton Conor wrote:

> Mark,
>
> Which ASR920 model do you use, and do they all operate the same?

We have been deploying the ASR-920-24SZ-M.

We had considered the 2-port and 12-port options to reduce cost, but
since Cisco can license the number of ports you activate, it's better to
take the 24-port unit and turn up the ports you need over time.

I've never deployed anything smaller than the 24-port, but I suspect
they all operate the same. It's the same chip they use in all models.


>
>
> 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.

Remember that the chip is rated at 64Gbps. So if you add IM modules,
you'll oversubscribe it in the larger models.

Mark.

_______________________________________________
juniper-nsp mailing list juniper-nsp@puck.nether.net
https://puck.nether.net/mailman/listinfo/juniper-nsp
Re: [SPF:Passed] Re: EX4600 Vs QFX 5100 VS ACX 5048 [ In reply to ]
Le 03/05/2016 à 15:48, Mark Tinka a écrit :
>
>
I look at ACX5048/QFX5100 to replace my EX4550 which act as
customer/aggregation router (ISIS/BGP/MPLS/L3VPN/L2Circuit).
The Ex4550 do the job but have some limitations I already explain (slow
RE, one MPLS label).
I wonder If one theses boxes do the job better than my old Ex.
QFX5100/ACX5048 are the same hardware, but no one know the exact sofware
difference ?
And talking to my SE, the pricing/licencing is quite confuse at the time
(at least for the ACX series)...
So if anyone have feedback :)

--
Raphael Mazelier
_______________________________________________
juniper-nsp mailing list juniper-nsp@puck.nether.net
https://puck.nether.net/mailman/listinfo/juniper-nsp
Re: [SPF:Passed] Re: EX4600 Vs QFX 5100 VS ACX 5048 [ In reply to ]
Raphael , I had issues last year when trying to test VPLS on EX4550...i
don't recall that it worked

In my lab I see the following... seems like the EX4550 is less capable in
its routing-instance types when compared to the ACX5048

**** ACX5048

agould@eng-lab-5048-1> show version
fpc0:
--------------------------------------------------------------------------
Hostname: eng-lab-5048-1
Model: acx5048
Junos: 15.1X54-D20.7
...

agould@eng-lab-5048-1# set routing-instances test instance-type ?

Possible completions:

evpn EVPN routing instance

forwarding Forwarding instance

l2backhaul-vpn L2Backhaul/L2Wholesale routing instance

l2vpn Layer 2 VPN routing instance

mpls-internet-multicast Internet Multicast over MPLS routing instance

no-forwarding Nonforwarding instance

virtual-router Virtual routing instance

vpls VPLS routing instance

vrf Virtual routing forwarding instance


**** EX4550

gvtc@eng-lab-ex4550-1# run show version
fpc0:
--------------------------------------------------------------------------
Hostname: eng-lab-ex4550-1
Model: ex4550-32f
JUNOS Base OS boot [12.2R1.9]
...

gvtc@eng-lab-ex4550-1# set routing-instances test instance-type ?

Possible completions:

forwarding Forwarding instance

l2vpn Layer 2 VPN routing instance

mpls-internet-multicast Internet Multicast over MPLS routing instance

no-forwarding Nonforwarding instance

virtual-router Virtual routing instance

vrf Virtual routing forwarding instance


-Aaron



_______________________________________________
juniper-nsp mailing list juniper-nsp@puck.nether.net
https://puck.nether.net/mailman/listinfo/juniper-nsp
Re: [SPF:Passed] Re: EX4600 Vs QFX 5100 VS ACX 5048 [ In reply to ]
Thanks aaron for the reply.

Vpls don't work on EX4550, the stanza does not even exist.
I'm interested in the result of your test on acx.
Stanzas exists good starting point.
Do you test further ?

Regards,

Le 03/05/2016 à 22:00, Aaron a écrit :
> Raphael , I had issues last year when trying to test VPLS on EX4550...i
> don't recall that it worked
>
> In my lab I see the following... seems like the EX4550 is less capable in
> its routing-instance types when compared to the ACX5048
>
> **** ACX5048
>
> agould@eng-lab-5048-1> show version
> fpc0:
> --------------------------------------------------------------------------
> Hostname: eng-lab-5048-1
> Model: acx5048
> Junos: 15.1X54-D20.7
> ...
>
> agould@eng-lab-5048-1# set routing-instances test instance-type ?
>
> Possible completions:
>
> evpn EVPN routing instance
>
> forwarding Forwarding instance
>
> l2backhaul-vpn L2Backhaul/L2Wholesale routing instance
>
> l2vpn Layer 2 VPN routing instance
>
> mpls-internet-multicast Internet Multicast over MPLS routing instance
>
> no-forwarding Nonforwarding instance
>
> virtual-router Virtual routing instance
>
> vpls VPLS routing instance
>
> vrf Virtual routing forwarding instance
>
>
> **** EX4550
>
> gvtc@eng-lab-ex4550-1# run show version
> fpc0:
> --------------------------------------------------------------------------
> Hostname: eng-lab-ex4550-1
> Model: ex4550-32f
> JUNOS Base OS boot [12.2R1.9]
> ...
>
> gvtc@eng-lab-ex4550-1# set routing-instances test instance-type ?
>
> Possible completions:
>
> forwarding Forwarding instance
>
> l2vpn Layer 2 VPN routing instance
>
> mpls-internet-multicast Internet Multicast over MPLS routing instance
>
> no-forwarding Nonforwarding instance
>
> virtual-router Virtual routing instance
>
> vrf Virtual routing forwarding instance
>
>
> -Aaron
>
>
>

_______________________________________________
juniper-nsp mailing list juniper-nsp@puck.nether.net
https://puck.nether.net/mailman/listinfo/juniper-nsp
Re: [SPF:Passed] Re: EX4600 Vs QFX 5100 VS ACX 5048 [ In reply to ]
YW Raphael, I've tested and am still testing a lot of vpls with ACX5048...
what would you like to know ? I'll try to help where I can

BTW, I'm motivated and required to figure out as much as I can on the
ACX5048... my boss just bought 14 of them ! (they have all 14 arrived in my
warehouse downstairs) ...we've already deployed 2 in our live network. One
is solely burning in as a P right now, forwarding nicely about ~2 gbps worth
of subscriber internet traffic just fine. We will be moving over some gear
to it soon so it will soon become a PE for mpls l2vpn's and l3vpn's. ...so
I gotta be comfortable with lots of this stuff before I go live (more live
than it already is :)

Regarding VPLS on ACX....I've tested ...

VPLS - BGP AD w/BGP Sig (I think known as rfc4761)
VPLS - BGP AD w/LDP Sig (I think known as rfc4762) - this is how my
pre-existing cisco gear defaults...so I will need to introduce juniper gear
into my cisco network as vpls bg ad w/ldp sig

These tests were done with pretty much all of the following signaling
lsp/pw's to one another ...

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

- I try to keep good notes on my findings during testing so please let me
know what you need and I'll try to dig it up, or recall it from memory

- Aaron




-----Original Message-----
From: raf [mailto:raph@futomaki.net]
Sent: Wednesday, May 4, 2016 4:05 AM
To: Aaron <aaron1@gvtc.com>; juniper-nsp@puck.nether.net
Subject: Re: [j-nsp] [SPF:Passed] Re: EX4600 Vs QFX 5100 VS ACX 5048

Thanks aaron for the reply.

Vpls don't work on EX4550, the stanza does not even exist.
I'm interested in the result of your test on acx.
Stanzas exists good starting point.
Do you test further ?

Regards,

Le 03/05/2016 à 22:00, Aaron a écrit :
> Raphael , I had issues last year when trying to test VPLS on
> EX4550...i don't recall that it worked
>
> In my lab I see the following... seems like the EX4550 is less capable
> in its routing-instance types when compared to the ACX5048
>
> **** ACX5048
>
> agould@eng-lab-5048-1> show version
> fpc0:
> ----------------------------------------------------------------------
> ----
> Hostname: eng-lab-5048-1
> Model: acx5048
> Junos: 15.1X54-D20.7
> ...
>
> agould@eng-lab-5048-1# set routing-instances test instance-type ?
>
> Possible completions:
>
> evpn EVPN routing instance
>
> forwarding Forwarding instance
>
> l2backhaul-vpn L2Backhaul/L2Wholesale routing instance
>
> l2vpn Layer 2 VPN routing instance
>
> mpls-internet-multicast Internet Multicast over MPLS routing
> instance
>
> no-forwarding Nonforwarding instance
>
> virtual-router Virtual routing instance
>
> vpls VPLS routing instance
>
> vrf Virtual routing forwarding instance
>
>
> **** EX4550
>
> gvtc@eng-lab-ex4550-1# run show version
> fpc0:
> ----------------------------------------------------------------------
> ----
> Hostname: eng-lab-ex4550-1
> Model: ex4550-32f
> JUNOS Base OS boot [12.2R1.9]
> ...
>
> gvtc@eng-lab-ex4550-1# set routing-instances test instance-type ?
>
> Possible completions:
>
> forwarding Forwarding instance
>
> l2vpn Layer 2 VPN routing instance
>
> mpls-internet-multicast Internet Multicast over MPLS routing
> instance
>
> no-forwarding Nonforwarding instance
>
> virtual-router Virtual routing instance
>
> vrf Virtual routing forwarding instance
>
>
> -Aaron
>
>
>


_______________________________________________
juniper-nsp mailing list juniper-nsp@puck.nether.net
https://puck.nether.net/mailman/listinfo/juniper-nsp
Re: [SPF:Passed] Re: EX4600 Vs QFX 5100 VS ACX 5048 [ In reply to ]
Le 05/05/2016 à 15:22, Aaron a écrit :
> YW Raphael, I've tested and am still testing a lot of vpls with ACX5048...
> what would you like to know ? I'll try to help where I can
>
> BTW, I'm motivated and required to figure out as much as I can on the
> ACX5048... my boss just bought 14 of them ! (they have all 14 arrived in my
> warehouse downstairs) ...we've already deployed 2 in our live network. One
> is solely burning in as a P right now, forwarding nicely about ~2 gbps worth
> of subscriber internet traffic just fine. We will be moving over some gear
> to it soon so it will soon become a PE for mpls l2vpn's and l3vpn's. ...so
> I gotta be comfortable with lots of this stuff before I go live (more live
> than it already is :)
Excellent.

>
> Regarding VPLS on ACX....I've tested ...
>
> VPLS - BGP AD w/BGP Sig (I think known as rfc4761)
> VPLS - BGP AD w/LDP Sig (I think known as rfc4762) - this is how my
> pre-existing cisco gear defaults...so I will need to introduce juniper gear
> into my cisco network as vpls bg ad w/ldp sig
And all is working as expected ?

I'm specially interesting in :

- l3vpn ldp/rvsp signaled (and is auto-export is working ?), and also is
Mpls (ldp/rvsp signaled not the problem) work on tagged link ?
- l2circuit (ldp based), l2vpn (bgp/rvsp based)

Subsidiary question 1 : do you know if they are a maximum label stack
depth on acx?
Subsidiary question 2 : have you test if the snmp counter on vlan, or
sub interface work as expected ?

They are know limitations I know on Ex4550.

> These tests were done with pretty much all of the following signaling
> lsp/pw's to one another ...
>
> Cisco ASR9K
> Cisco ASR920 (2 flavors as I recall)
> Cisco ASR903
> Cisco ME3600
> Juniper MX104
> Juniper ACX5048

Good luck ;)

>
> - I try to keep good notes on my findings during testing so please let me
> know what you need and I'll try to dig it up, or recall it from memory
>
>
Thks.

--
Raphael Mazelier


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