From memory when I last asked that question HCOS/HQOS was still an MX only thing :(
That was why the ASR920's were so handy for me. On 12 May 2017 at 18:51, James Bensley <[email protected]> wrote: > On 10 May 2017 at 22:08, Aaron Gould <[email protected]> wrote: >> I also like what I've seen recently in the Juniper ACX5048 (48/72 - 10 gig >> ports, or (6) 40 gig ports), which replaced lots of my older Cisco ME3600 >> boxes (only two 10 gig ports). > > Did you hit any QoS issues with this? The ACX5048 and QFX5100-48S both > say 8 queues per port, on our MEs we have loads of queues per port, is > this just a difference in nomenclature between vendors or really just > 8 queues per port? > > Case in point, on an ME with say an Ethernet NNI port we will have an > S-Tag per end site and multiple C-Tag per VRF/L3 VPN to that end site. > So the ENNI port will have a simple H-QoS configuration on it. We have > hundreds of S-Tags on an ENNI port and then on average about 3 C-Tags > per S-Tag. Each S-Tag is shaped to the site bandwidth and then a > policy applied to match all the C-Tags which can have to 7 traffic > classes in it. So say 8 queues per S-tag, we have hundreds of queues > per port. > > We have been looking at ACX to replace ME’s too but am I missing > something or is the QoS capabilities of the ACX in no way comparable? > I can't find a Juniper product that can replace the MEs at layer 2 > (48x 1G/10G ports with >10G uplinks and ME-like QoS). > > Cheers, > James. > _______________________________________________ > cisco-nsp mailing list [email protected] > https://puck.nether.net/mailman/listinfo/cisco-nsp > archive at http://puck.nether.net/pipermail/cisco-nsp/ -- Regards, Mark L. Tees _______________________________________________ cisco-nsp mailing list [email protected] https://puck.nether.net/mailman/listinfo/cisco-nsp archive at http://puck.nether.net/pipermail/cisco-nsp/
