Hello Layer 3 is only at the core (MX), aggregation (QFX) and access (EX) are layer 2 only. So the MC-LAG between the QFX would be a layer 2 MC-LAG, while the MC-LAG between the MX is a Layer 3 MC-LAG with IRB. In this specific datacenter it's mostly servers that are connected to the access switches.
VXLAN and EVPN would add a ton of complexity to this setup, which is - at least at the moment, with only one MC-LAG - a very simple and easy to maintain network design. Thanks for the replies so far. Regards Karl ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------ *From:* Brant Ian Stevens [mailto:bra...@argentiumsolutions.com] *Sent:* Tuesday, Mar 13, 2018 11:51 PM CET *To:* Karl Gerhard *Subject:* [j-nsp] Experience with two-tier MC-LAG? > Do you have a layer-2 adjacency requirement at the edge? Even if you do, I'd > ask why don't you use VXLAN and EVPN? > > On 3/13/18 12:20 PM, Karl Gerhard wrote: > >> Hello >> >> I would like to know whether anyone has deployed a two-tier MC-LAG: >> MC-LAG #1 between the aggregation switches >> MC-LAG #2 between the core routers >> This would allow for a network design with "active/active everything". >> >> Our current setup is the following: Access (Juniper EX), Aggregation >> (Juniper QFX), Core (Juniper MX). >> Our access switches use Redundant Trunk Groups to connect to two aggregation >> switches. >> Each aggregation switch has an AE where the first cable of the AE goes the >> MX #1 and the second cable of the AE goes to MX #2. To make this possible we >> have an MC-LAG between the MXs. >> Pic: https://abload.de/img/single-mc-lag2io7w.jpg >> With this setup only one uplink of the access switch is utilized, the other >> one is idle due to the nature of redundant trunk groups (active/passive). >> >> If we had a second MC-LAG between the QFXs we could utilize both uplinks of >> the access switch. >> Pic: https://abload.de/img/double-mc-lag4ppfd.jpg >> >> Does anyone have experience with such a setup? Is this the highway to >> debugging hell or is it a good idea that increases bandwidth available to >> the access layer? >> >> Regards >> Karl >> _______________________________________________ >> juniper-nsp mailing list juniper-nsp@puck.nether.net >> https://puck.nether.net/mailman/listinfo/juniper-nsp > _______________________________________________ juniper-nsp mailing list juniper-nsp@puck.nether.net https://puck.nether.net/mailman/listinfo/juniper-nsp
