Hi, On MX-Series you do not need any kind of tunnel services, nor deactivating any port. The LSIs are created on the run, and there is no limit - I have run a MX960 with 400 VPLS-Instances (independent, not vlan in a virtual switch) without any matter. Performance was almost linerate.
Tom On 28.03.2011 00:53, 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. Anyone have some insight? Thanks Chris _______________________________________________ juniper-nsp mailing list [email protected] https://puck.nether.net/mailman/listinfo/juniper-nsp
_______________________________________________ juniper-nsp mailing list [email protected] https://puck.nether.net/mailman/listinfo/juniper-nsp
