On 10/29/15 5:57 AM, Edward Dore wrote: > On 29 Oct 2015, at 12:49, Mark Tinka <[email protected]> wrote: > >> >> >> On 29/Oct/15 14:22, Cydon Satyr wrote: >> >>> Oh wow. >>> >>> Any real drawbacks to running something like 32x10Gbps LAG link in core >>> instead of higher bandwidth physical links? Just seems so unreal. >> >> Folk like AMS-IX have publicly acknowledged running 32x 10Gbps on their >> exchange point (albeit, with Brocade) right before 100Gbps ports became >> viable. >> >> I suppose the biggest issue will be how you hash equally across all of >> the links, especially if much of the traffic being carried is inherently >> Layer 2 (despite having a Layer 3 payload). >> >> Mark. >> _______________________________________________ >> juniper-nsp mailing list [email protected] >> https://puck.nether.net/mailman/listinfo/juniper-nsp > > I believe LINX were using 64x10G LAGs between the core nodes on the Juniper > LAN in London before the upgrade to use smaller 100G bundles. > > I guess the biggest benefit of using 100G interfaces instead of 10x10G is > that you can support individual flows >10G.
a reduction in fiber count or waves utilized is non-trivial given you go from 20 fibers to 8 or 2. > Edward Dore > Freethought Internet > > > > _______________________________________________ > juniper-nsp mailing list [email protected] > https://puck.nether.net/mailman/listinfo/juniper-nsp >
signature.asc
Description: OpenPGP digital signature
_______________________________________________ juniper-nsp mailing list [email protected] https://puck.nether.net/mailman/listinfo/juniper-nsp
