>>> On 11 April 2018 at 13:43, Ola Thoresen <o...@nytt.no> wrote: >>> Granted at least JNPR offering allows you to run same device as pure >>> L2, with Cisco offering it is satellite-only box, cannot be used as >>> L2. >> >> I know what you mean, but I must say that this time it seems like they have >> more or less managed to do it right. They use pretty standard protocols for >> everything, it is just "packaged" so you don't need to think about it. >> >> But as you say, you can easily use the exact same hardware in a regular L2 >> setup, the thing you gain from the satellite setup is central management of >> only the routers, which can be a time and management saver.
I have to say, I completely disagree. On 11 April 2018 at 13:12, Alexandre Guimaraes <alexandre.guimar...@ascenty.com> wrote: > Last notice that I have about Junos fusion, some features doesn’t work in to > satellite ports, like ethernet ccc. ^ This is the reason why. Fusion is a layer 1 extension, my 1st question to Juniper is why is there a DC version and a Service Provider version? https://www.juniper.net/assets/us/en/local/pdf/datasheets/1000523-en.pdf: "Junos Fusion Provider Edge is a technology enabler that overcomes optical pluggable p hysical limitations by delegating low-speed optical interfaces to a cost-appropriate switch, virtually expanding connectivity to thousands of ports from a single Juniper Networks MX Series 3D Universal Edge Router." "Junos Fusion Data Center provides automated network configuration and operational simplicity for medium to large data centers with up to four QFX10000 switches deployed in the spine layer and any combination of up to 64 QFX5100, QFX5110-48S, QFX5200-32C, and EX4300 top-of-rack switches deployed as satellite devices." Basically the same justification for both technology variants - more ports for less money with zero touch deployment. Both scenarios can benefit from those proposed advantages so no need to make them separate products. Obviously they will to make more money, but it looked back it you have an Ethernet based layer 1 extension technology and there is more than one variant of it, in 2018 we're only using one kind of Ethernet here. OK, 2nd question, and this is my real annoyance, and why I believe Juniper haven't done it right; Why are certain features, e.g. Inter-AS MPLS Option B connections, not support over the Service Provider version? We're heavy users of OptB interconnects and these devices are supposed to be layer 1 extensions. Can they pass an Ethernet frame, yes or no? The answer is yes so anything higher level should be ignored in my opinion. After pressing Juniper they said that certain traffic types aren't support because when they release new Fusion version, they test the most common traffic types and they "can't test everything", and MPLS OptB's are on the "no time for testing" list. It is possible that it would work just fine, but if any issues arise they won't support it. Surely they should test that Ethernet frames pass OK and then support anything that runs over Ethernet? If you're selling a layer 1 extension service for Ethernet and a certain kind of traffic isn't support that runs over the top of Ethernet - that is a great big red flag to me. We only have Fusion because they wanted more people to run it - they sold it to us for cheaper than vanilla layer 2 switches. I feel dirty. Cheers, James. _______________________________________________ juniper-nsp mailing list firstname.lastname@example.org https://puck.nether.net/mailman/listinfo/juniper-nsp