Arista is still the best deal around when it comes to very high speed, high density ethernet.
In some deployments, it's the only possible choice. Juniper doesn't have a great product offering at ToR and even access layer/core routing when you start talking 40 gig ports. On Tue, Jul 2, 2013 at 11:00 AM, Morgan McLean <[email protected]> wrote: > Wow, this thread snowballed into quite the MX80 debate. For the record, I > run two in production where I am employed full time and they perform > beautifully, though woefully underutilized. > > Using static routes and /32's as peering endpoints is a great option I > skimmed over, I'll see if the upstream can do this...they should. > > Unfortunately, the customer signed the contract for bandwidth with > inteliquent; we have existing 10G with telia and 10G with cogent along with > a couple existing 10G from inteliquent, but I'm not sure if they'll stay. > So I didn't really have much say...I think the price point was more > important than the benefits of signing to a few carriers. In short, I'm > working on that. > > This traffic should be mostly web. > > Sorry, I meant to say OSPF and ECMP. I would like to be able to run the > VRRP at the end of row and extend L3 as far as I can, but I guess the > customer wants to be able to spread machines in the same environments among > multiple rows, which is understandable, but that means I need to run L2 > from distribution to access. Each row needs 100gbps useable, so I suppose 4 > x 40GBE LAGs would do the trick nicely. If my client doesn't want to spend > the money in that area... > > Any good aggregation switch suggestions? Juniper is doesn't provide good > ports for $ in the switching realm....customer balked at the cost for a > four port 40G blade on a 9200. Might check out brocade.. > > Thanks, > Morgan > > > On Tue, Jul 2, 2013 at 8:13 AM, Christian de Balorre < > [email protected]> wrote: > > > Slow control-plane. No RE redundancy. More limited rib & fib than regular > > MX. Cryptic licensing scheme. > > Otherwise nothing really wrong. > > > > Christian > > > > Le 02/07/2013 15:55, Drew Weaver a écrit : > > > > And what is wrong with the MX80 as a peering/transit router for up to > >> 80Gbps of traffic? > >> > >> Thanks, > >> -Drew > >> > >> > >> -----Original Message----- > >> From: juniper-nsp [mailto:juniper-nsp-bounces@**puck.nether.net< > [email protected]>] > >> On Behalf Of Dobbins, Roland > >> Sent: Tuesday, July 02, 2013 9:01 AM > >> To: juniper-nsp Puck > >> Subject: Re: [j-nsp] Advice on a 100Gbps+ environment > >> > >> > >> On Jul 2, 2013, at 7:19 PM, Mark Tinka wrote: > >> > >> Says who? > >>> > >> Doh - MX*480*, not MX*80*. My mistake. > >> > >> ------------------------------**------------------------------** > >> ----------- > >> Roland Dobbins <[email protected]> // <http://www.arbornetworks.com> > >> > >> Luck is the residue of opportunity and design. > >> > >> -- John Milton > >> > >> > >> ______________________________**_________________ > >> juniper-nsp mailing list [email protected] > >> https://puck.nether.net/**mailman/listinfo/juniper-nsp< > https://puck.nether.net/mailman/listinfo/juniper-nsp> > >> > >> ______________________________**_________________ > >> juniper-nsp mailing list [email protected] > >> https://puck.nether.net/**mailman/listinfo/juniper-nsp< > https://puck.nether.net/mailman/listinfo/juniper-nsp> > >> > > > > ______________________________**_________________ > > juniper-nsp mailing list [email protected] > > https://puck.nether.net/**mailman/listinfo/juniper-nsp< > https://puck.nether.net/mailman/listinfo/juniper-nsp> > > > > > > -- > Thanks, > Morgan > _______________________________________________ > 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
