The short answer is: http://www.juniper.net/techpubs/software/junos/junos92/swconfig-vpns/configuring-vpls-without-a-tunnel-services-pic.html
This is meant to just need recent-ish pic's facing the MPLS cloud. On 28/03/11 09:53, Chris Evans wrote: > All the communication that we've received from Juniper is that they perceive > MPLS and VPLS to be their answer to Cisco's OTV. I've been researching VPLS > on the Juniper platforms and I cannot find any definite information as to > how much it can scale performance/bandwidth wise. VPLS requires either a VT > interface or a LSI interface on that hardware. The VT interfaces can only be > obtained by hardware that can do tunnel services, and the LSI interface is > only on the MX platforms from what I can read. > > As tunnel PICs have limited performance and LSI interfaces 'steal' physical > 10Gig interfaces on the 10Gig MX blades (I know it won't on the GigE blades) > how does Juniper expect to be able to provide high bandwidth VPLS while > still providing high port density? The TRIO cards have some inline services, > but does they offer these services? It seems like Juniper is expecting to > throw another half baked solution out there to compete with Cisco and I'm > not sure how they're going to scale the infrastructure. The Cisco solution > uses the built in ASIC hardware to do this and do not require ports to be > stolen, etc.. It really bothers me that you have to lose interfaces and/or > install special hardware to do inline services, which only increases the > cost of the platforms drastically.
signature.asc
Description: OpenPGP digital signature
_______________________________________________ juniper-nsp mailing list [email protected] https://puck.nether.net/mailman/listinfo/juniper-nsp
