Re: [c-nsp] Juniper M320 vs. 7600/SUP320-3BXL and WS-X6148A-GE-TX
what about asr9k with low-queue cards? its price and performance is reasonable as well. br, A. On Wed, 28 Jul 2010, Chris Hale wrote: Hello, Looking for options to our next upgrade from our 7200VXR platform. Someone suggested 7600 and the WS-X6148A-GE-TX cards with a SUP720-3BXL. We're doing BGP (4-5 full iBGP peers, 13 external peers (3 upstream, 10 downstream), all full routes), dot1q trunks, EoMPLS with L2VPNs. We will most likely do dot1q trunks to our agg switches at our other POPs with MPLS and L2VPNs being started/terminated on dot1q trunks. We're also looking to roll out IPv6 services in the next few months. Our options we're looking at are a Juniper M320 w/RE-1600 and SFP PIC (PB-4GE-SFP). I don't necessarily need the port density of the 48-port Cisco card, but it's always nice to have. Any reason not to start with the 6148A card and upgrade to the OSM cards, etc., I'm open to suggestions, opinions, etc, and especially any gotchas with either platform. Thanks, Chris ___ cisco-nsp mailing list cisco-nsp@puck.nether.net https://puck.nether.net/mailman/listinfo/cisco-nsp archive at http://puck.nether.net/pipermail/cisco-nsp/ ___ cisco-nsp mailing list cisco-nsp@puck.nether.net https://puck.nether.net/mailman/listinfo/cisco-nsp archive at http://puck.nether.net/pipermail/cisco-nsp/
Re: [c-nsp] Juniper M320 vs. 7600/SUP320-3BXL and WS-X6148A-GE-TX
I thought the BGP scanner and other generic performance caveats that affected the 6500s were a universal issue amongst all vendors? -Drew -Original Message- From: cisco-nsp-boun...@puck.nether.net [mailto:cisco-nsp-boun...@puck.nether.net] On Behalf Of Paul Stewart Sent: Wednesday, July 28, 2010 3:58 PM To: sth...@nethelp.no; chal...@gmail.com Cc: cisco-nsp@puck.nether.net Subject: Re: [c-nsp] Juniper M320 vs. 7600/SUP320-3BXL and WS-X6148A-GE-TX Yes, I'd like to throw in that we are migrating to pure MX in our core .. and moving out of 7600 platform (sup720-3bxl). This is partly price related although BGP performance (scanner) was the driving force on this decision. Also, for MPLS the price/features to deploy was much more attractive to us on the MX series too. We have some of the MX up and running now and extremely pleased in comparison. Juniper isn't perfect nor is Cisco - for our needs the move to MX for core BGP/MPLS appears to have been a really good choice. Paul -Original Message- From: cisco-nsp-boun...@puck.nether.net [mailto:cisco-nsp-boun...@puck.nether.net] On Behalf Of sth...@nethelp.no Sent: Wednesday, July 28, 2010 3:48 PM To: chal...@gmail.com Cc: cisco-nsp@puck.nether.net Subject: Re: [c-nsp] Juniper M320 vs. 7600/SUP320-3BXL and WS-X6148A-GE-TX Looking for options to our next upgrade from our 7200VXR platform. Someone suggested 7600 and the WS-X6148A-GE-TX cards with a SUP720-3BXL. We're doing BGP (4-5 full iBGP peers, 13 external peers (3 upstream, 10 downstream), all full routes), dot1q trunks, EoMPLS with L2VPNs. We will most likely do dot1q trunks to our agg switches at our other POPs with MPLS and L2VPNs being started/terminated on dot1q trunks. We're also looking to roll out IPv6 services in the next few months. Our options we're looking at are a Juniper M320 w/RE-1600 and SFP PIC (PB-4GE-SFP). If you're doing Ethernet only you should be looking at the Juniper MX series (e.g. MX480) instead of M320. Much nicer port pricing. Steinar Haug, Nethelp consulting, sth...@nethelp.no ___ cisco-nsp mailing list cisco-nsp@puck.nether.net https://puck.nether.net/mailman/listinfo/cisco-nsp archive at http://puck.nether.net/pipermail/cisco-nsp/ ___ cisco-nsp mailing list cisco-nsp@puck.nether.net https://puck.nether.net/mailman/listinfo/cisco-nsp archive at http://puck.nether.net/pipermail/cisco-nsp/ ___ cisco-nsp mailing list cisco-nsp@puck.nether.net https://puck.nether.net/mailman/listinfo/cisco-nsp archive at http://puck.nether.net/pipermail/cisco-nsp/
Re: [c-nsp] Juniper M320 vs. 7600/SUP320-3BXL and WS-X6148A-GE-TX
On 29/07/2010 14:06, Drew Weaver wrote: I thought the BGP scanner and other generic performance caveats that affected the 6500s were a universal issue amongst all vendors? the sup720 cpu is very slow - not surprising, considering that it's a design which dates from 2002. Nick ___ cisco-nsp mailing list cisco-nsp@puck.nether.net https://puck.nether.net/mailman/listinfo/cisco-nsp archive at http://puck.nether.net/pipermail/cisco-nsp/
Re: [c-nsp] Juniper M320 vs. 7600/SUP320-3BXL and WS-X6148A-GE-TX
Other vendors are event driven where a next-hop change in the FIB will notify the RIB/BGP of the change, so convergence is faster. Cisco does similar things if you use the BGP next-hop-tracking feature in later IOS versions. Phil On Jul 29, 2010, at 9:06 AM, Drew Weaver wrote: I thought the BGP scanner and other generic performance caveats that affected the 6500s were a universal issue amongst all vendors? -Drew -Original Message- From: cisco-nsp-boun...@puck.nether.net [mailto:cisco-nsp-boun...@puck.nether.net] On Behalf Of Paul Stewart Sent: Wednesday, July 28, 2010 3:58 PM To: sth...@nethelp.no; chal...@gmail.com Cc: cisco-nsp@puck.nether.net Subject: Re: [c-nsp] Juniper M320 vs. 7600/SUP320-3BXL and WS-X6148A-GE-TX Yes, I'd like to throw in that we are migrating to pure MX in our core .. and moving out of 7600 platform (sup720-3bxl). This is partly price related although BGP performance (scanner) was the driving force on this decision. Also, for MPLS the price/features to deploy was much more attractive to us on the MX series too. We have some of the MX up and running now and extremely pleased in comparison. Juniper isn't perfect nor is Cisco - for our needs the move to MX for core BGP/MPLS appears to have been a really good choice. Paul -Original Message- From: cisco-nsp-boun...@puck.nether.net [mailto:cisco-nsp-boun...@puck.nether.net] On Behalf Of sth...@nethelp.no Sent: Wednesday, July 28, 2010 3:48 PM To: chal...@gmail.com Cc: cisco-nsp@puck.nether.net Subject: Re: [c-nsp] Juniper M320 vs. 7600/SUP320-3BXL and WS-X6148A-GE-TX Looking for options to our next upgrade from our 7200VXR platform. Someone suggested 7600 and the WS-X6148A-GE-TX cards with a SUP720-3BXL. We're doing BGP (4-5 full iBGP peers, 13 external peers (3 upstream, 10 downstream), all full routes), dot1q trunks, EoMPLS with L2VPNs. We will most likely do dot1q trunks to our agg switches at our other POPs with MPLS and L2VPNs being started/terminated on dot1q trunks. We're also looking to roll out IPv6 services in the next few months. Our options we're looking at are a Juniper M320 w/RE-1600 and SFP PIC (PB-4GE-SFP). If you're doing Ethernet only you should be looking at the Juniper MX series (e.g. MX480) instead of M320. Much nicer port pricing. Steinar Haug, Nethelp consulting, sth...@nethelp.no ___ cisco-nsp mailing list cisco-nsp@puck.nether.net https://puck.nether.net/mailman/listinfo/cisco-nsp archive at http://puck.nether.net/pipermail/cisco-nsp/ ___ cisco-nsp mailing list cisco-nsp@puck.nether.net https://puck.nether.net/mailman/listinfo/cisco-nsp archive at http://puck.nether.net/pipermail/cisco-nsp/ ___ cisco-nsp mailing list cisco-nsp@puck.nether.net https://puck.nether.net/mailman/listinfo/cisco-nsp archive at http://puck.nether.net/pipermail/cisco-nsp/ ___ cisco-nsp mailing list cisco-nsp@puck.nether.net https://puck.nether.net/mailman/listinfo/cisco-nsp archive at http://puck.nether.net/pipermail/cisco-nsp/
Re: [c-nsp] Juniper M320 vs. 7600/SUP320-3BXL and WS-X6148A-GE-TX
So it just doesn't work on SXI3/4a then? thanks, -Drew -Original Message- From: Phil Bedard [mailto:phil...@gmail.com] Sent: Thursday, July 29, 2010 9:50 AM To: Drew Weaver Cc: 'Paul Stewart'; sth...@nethelp.no; chal...@gmail.com; cisco-nsp@puck.nether.net Subject: Re: [c-nsp] Juniper M320 vs. 7600/SUP320-3BXL and WS-X6148A-GE-TX Other vendors are event driven where a next-hop change in the FIB will notify the RIB/BGP of the change, so convergence is faster. Cisco does similar things if you use the BGP next-hop-tracking feature in later IOS versions. Phil On Jul 29, 2010, at 9:06 AM, Drew Weaver wrote: I thought the BGP scanner and other generic performance caveats that affected the 6500s were a universal issue amongst all vendors? -Drew -Original Message- From: cisco-nsp-boun...@puck.nether.net [mailto:cisco-nsp-boun...@puck.nether.net] On Behalf Of Paul Stewart Sent: Wednesday, July 28, 2010 3:58 PM To: sth...@nethelp.no; chal...@gmail.com Cc: cisco-nsp@puck.nether.net Subject: Re: [c-nsp] Juniper M320 vs. 7600/SUP320-3BXL and WS-X6148A-GE-TX Yes, I'd like to throw in that we are migrating to pure MX in our core .. and moving out of 7600 platform (sup720-3bxl). This is partly price related although BGP performance (scanner) was the driving force on this decision. Also, for MPLS the price/features to deploy was much more attractive to us on the MX series too. We have some of the MX up and running now and extremely pleased in comparison. Juniper isn't perfect nor is Cisco - for our needs the move to MX for core BGP/MPLS appears to have been a really good choice. Paul -Original Message- From: cisco-nsp-boun...@puck.nether.net [mailto:cisco-nsp-boun...@puck.nether.net] On Behalf Of sth...@nethelp.no Sent: Wednesday, July 28, 2010 3:48 PM To: chal...@gmail.com Cc: cisco-nsp@puck.nether.net Subject: Re: [c-nsp] Juniper M320 vs. 7600/SUP320-3BXL and WS-X6148A-GE-TX Looking for options to our next upgrade from our 7200VXR platform. Someone suggested 7600 and the WS-X6148A-GE-TX cards with a SUP720-3BXL. We're doing BGP (4-5 full iBGP peers, 13 external peers (3 upstream, 10 downstream), all full routes), dot1q trunks, EoMPLS with L2VPNs. We will most likely do dot1q trunks to our agg switches at our other POPs with MPLS and L2VPNs being started/terminated on dot1q trunks. We're also looking to roll out IPv6 services in the next few months. Our options we're looking at are a Juniper M320 w/RE-1600 and SFP PIC (PB-4GE-SFP). If you're doing Ethernet only you should be looking at the Juniper MX series (e.g. MX480) instead of M320. Much nicer port pricing. Steinar Haug, Nethelp consulting, sth...@nethelp.no ___ cisco-nsp mailing list cisco-nsp@puck.nether.net https://puck.nether.net/mailman/listinfo/cisco-nsp archive at http://puck.nether.net/pipermail/cisco-nsp/ ___ cisco-nsp mailing list cisco-nsp@puck.nether.net https://puck.nether.net/mailman/listinfo/cisco-nsp archive at http://puck.nether.net/pipermail/cisco-nsp/ ___ cisco-nsp mailing list cisco-nsp@puck.nether.net https://puck.nether.net/mailman/listinfo/cisco-nsp archive at http://puck.nether.net/pipermail/cisco-nsp/ ___ cisco-nsp mailing list cisco-nsp@puck.nether.net https://puck.nether.net/mailman/listinfo/cisco-nsp archive at http://puck.nether.net/pipermail/cisco-nsp/
Re: [c-nsp] Juniper M320 vs. 7600/SUP320-3BXL and WS-X6148A-GE-TX
On 2010-07-29 16:15, Drew Weaver wrote: So it just doesn't work on SXI3/4a then? BGP next-hop tracking is present for 6500 from SXH onwards: http://www.cisco.com/en/US/docs/switches/lan/catalyst6500/ios/12.2SX/release/notes/features.html -- Everything will be okay in the end. | Łukasz Bromirski If it's not okay, it's not the end. | http://lukasz.bromirski.net ___ cisco-nsp mailing list cisco-nsp@puck.nether.net https://puck.nether.net/mailman/listinfo/cisco-nsp archive at http://puck.nether.net/pipermail/cisco-nsp/
Re: [c-nsp] Juniper M320 vs. 7600/SUP320-3BXL and WS-X6148A-GE-TX
Looking for options to our next upgrade from our 7200VXR platform. Someone suggested 7600 and the WS-X6148A-GE-TX cards with a SUP720-3BXL. We're doing BGP (4-5 full iBGP peers, 13 external peers (3 upstream, 10 downstream), all full routes), dot1q trunks, EoMPLS with L2VPNs. We will most likely do dot1q trunks to our agg switches at our other POPs with MPLS and L2VPNs being started/terminated on dot1q trunks. We're also looking to roll out IPv6 services in the next few months. Our options we're looking at are a Juniper M320 w/RE-1600 and SFP PIC (PB-4GE-SFP). If you're doing Ethernet only you should be looking at the Juniper MX series (e.g. MX480) instead of M320. Much nicer port pricing. Steinar Haug, Nethelp consulting, sth...@nethelp.no ___ cisco-nsp mailing list cisco-nsp@puck.nether.net https://puck.nether.net/mailman/listinfo/cisco-nsp archive at http://puck.nether.net/pipermail/cisco-nsp/
Re: [c-nsp] Juniper M320 vs. 7600/SUP320-3BXL and WS-X6148A-GE-TX
Yes, I'd like to throw in that we are migrating to pure MX in our core .. and moving out of 7600 platform (sup720-3bxl). This is partly price related although BGP performance (scanner) was the driving force on this decision. Also, for MPLS the price/features to deploy was much more attractive to us on the MX series too. We have some of the MX up and running now and extremely pleased in comparison. Juniper isn't perfect nor is Cisco - for our needs the move to MX for core BGP/MPLS appears to have been a really good choice. Paul -Original Message- From: cisco-nsp-boun...@puck.nether.net [mailto:cisco-nsp-boun...@puck.nether.net] On Behalf Of sth...@nethelp.no Sent: Wednesday, July 28, 2010 3:48 PM To: chal...@gmail.com Cc: cisco-nsp@puck.nether.net Subject: Re: [c-nsp] Juniper M320 vs. 7600/SUP320-3BXL and WS-X6148A-GE-TX Looking for options to our next upgrade from our 7200VXR platform. Someone suggested 7600 and the WS-X6148A-GE-TX cards with a SUP720-3BXL. We're doing BGP (4-5 full iBGP peers, 13 external peers (3 upstream, 10 downstream), all full routes), dot1q trunks, EoMPLS with L2VPNs. We will most likely do dot1q trunks to our agg switches at our other POPs with MPLS and L2VPNs being started/terminated on dot1q trunks. We're also looking to roll out IPv6 services in the next few months. Our options we're looking at are a Juniper M320 w/RE-1600 and SFP PIC (PB-4GE-SFP). If you're doing Ethernet only you should be looking at the Juniper MX series (e.g. MX480) instead of M320. Much nicer port pricing. Steinar Haug, Nethelp consulting, sth...@nethelp.no ___ cisco-nsp mailing list cisco-nsp@puck.nether.net https://puck.nether.net/mailman/listinfo/cisco-nsp archive at http://puck.nether.net/pipermail/cisco-nsp/ ___ cisco-nsp mailing list cisco-nsp@puck.nether.net https://puck.nether.net/mailman/listinfo/cisco-nsp archive at http://puck.nether.net/pipermail/cisco-nsp/
Re: [c-nsp] Juniper M320 vs. 7600/SUP320-3BXL and WS-X6148A-GE-TX
On 07/28/2010 06:40 PM, Chris Hale wrote: Hello, Looking for options to our next upgrade from our 7200VXR platform. Someone suggested 7600 and the WS-X6148A-GE-TX cards with a 6148 cards have some serious feature limitations and performance caveats. Search the archives for info. Also bear in mind the LAN card limitations, especially with VPLS. ___ cisco-nsp mailing list cisco-nsp@puck.nether.net https://puck.nether.net/mailman/listinfo/cisco-nsp archive at http://puck.nether.net/pipermail/cisco-nsp/
Re: [c-nsp] Juniper M320 vs. 7600/SUP320-3BXL and WS-X6148A-GE-TX
Same story here.. About to roll out more MX, but so far so good... On Jul 28, 2010 3:15 PM, Paul Stewart p...@paulstewart.org wrote: Yes, I'd like to throw in that we are migrating to pure MX in our core .. and moving out of 7600 platform (sup720-3bxl). This is partly price related although BGP performance (scanner) was the driving force on this decision. Also, for MPLS the price/features to deploy was much more attractive to us on the MX series too. We have some of the MX up and running now and extremely pleased in comparison. Juniper isn't perfect nor is Cisco - for our needs the move to MX for core BGP/MPLS appears to have been a really good choice. Paul -Original Message- From: cisco-nsp-boun...@puck.nether.net [mailto:cisco-nsp-boun...@puck ___ cisco-nsp mailing list cisco-nsp@puck.nether.net https://puck.nether.net/mailman/listinfo/cisco-nsp archive at http://puck.nether.net/pipermail/cisco-nsp/
Re: [c-nsp] Juniper M320 vs. 7600/SUP320-3BXL and WS-X6148A-GE-TX
We switched to MX about a year ago. A pair of MX-240 routers. Price and maintenance costs were the factors that drove us towards switching to Juniper. Honestly, after a year of living with them, even if they cost the same as Cisco, I'd still go for the Junipers. - Original Message --- Subject: Re: [c-nsp] Juniper M320 vs. 7600/SUP320-3BXL and WS-X6148A-GE-TX From: Tim Jackson jackson@gmail.com Date: Wed, 28 Jul 2010 19:05:53 -0500 To: Paul Stewart p...@paulstewart.org Cc: sth...@nethelp.no, cisco-nsp@puck.nether.net Same story here.. About to roll out more MX, but so far so good... On Jul 28, 2010 3:15 PM, Paul Stewart p...@paulstewart.org wrote: Yes, I'd like to throw in that we are migrating to pure MX in our core .. and moving out of 7600 platform (sup720-3bxl). This is partly price related although BGP performance (scanner) was the driving force on this decision. Also, for MPLS the price/features to deploy was much more attractive to us on the MX series too. We have some of the MX up and running now and extremely pleased in comparison. Juniper isn't perfect nor is Cisco - for our needs the move to MX for core BGP/MPLS appears to have been a really good choice. Paul -Original Message- From: cisco-nsp-boun...@puck.nether.net [mailto:cisco-nsp-boun...@puck ___ cisco-nsp mailing list cisco-nsp@puck.nether.net https://puck.nether.net/mailman/listinfo/cisco-nsp archive at http://puck.nether.net/pipermail/cisco-nsp/ ___ cisco-nsp mailing list cisco-nsp@puck.nether.net https://puck.nether.net/mailman/listinfo/cisco-nsp archive at http://puck.nether.net/pipermail/cisco-nsp/
