subject:"\[j\-nsp\] QFX5110 \/ VXLAN"

Re: [j-nsp] QFX5110 / VXLAN

2018-08-07 Thread Richard McGovern

They are both planned to support L3, but probably not day 1.  QFX5200/QFX5210, 
both shipping products, are L2 only today.  L3 VXLAN support will probably 
require RIOT – recycle packet.  These platforms are Broadcom based so 
limitation is a Broadcom limitation.

Hope this helps.

On 8/7/18, 1:50 PM, "Brian Rak"  wrote:

Are the QFX5200/QFX5210 also only layer 2 EVPN-VXLAN?

On 8/7/2018 1:42 PM, Richard McGovern wrote:
> Correct.  For this functionality one needs either a 10K/MXPTX or EX9200 
at current time.  These situations may also require EVPN-MPLS, versus 
EVPN-VXLAN.  QFX5110 is limited to EVPN-VXLAN at least today.  QFX5100 provide 
L2 only EVPN-VXLAN.
>
> Thanks for pointing this out.
>
> On 8/6/18, 12:40 PM, "Mike Gonnason"  wrote:
>
>  Be aware on the QFX5110 that L3 VXLAN is limited, You cannot route 
vxlan to
>  vlan:
>  
https://prsearch.juniper.net/InfoCenter/index?page=prcontent=PR1318178
>  
>  
>  
>  On Wed, Jul 4, 2018 at 3:51 PM Brant Ian Stevens <
>  bra...@argentiumsolutions.com> wrote:
>  
>  > And now there's the announcement of the QFX5120 and EX4650 to the 
mix.
>  > Those are Trident-3 based, if I am not mistaken.  Boxes look great 
on
>  > paper...
>  >
>  > --
>  > Regards,
>  > --
>  > Brant I. Stevens, Principal & Consulting Architect
>  > bra...@argentiumsolutions.com
>  > d:212.931.8566, x101 <(212)%20931-8566>. m:917.673.6536 
<(917)%20673-6536>.
>  > f:917.525.4759 <(917)%20525-4759>.
>  > 
https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=http-3A__argentiumsolutions.com=DwIFaQ=HAkYuh63rsuhr6Scbfh0UjBXeMK-ndb3voDTXcWzoCI=cViNvWbwxCvdnmDGDIbWYLiUsu8nisqLYXmd-x445bc=eVWy_z1Tt_vOBqrVgHiM_dtKdycFG7efWLRFNxJndQk=OmeaqZQV835ARTQIMsk32-c0AQ4PSf50LLpVss0TzuM=
>  >
>  > On 7/4/18 5:03 PM, Scott Harvanek wrote:
>  > > Cost is a factor I don’t think I can get anyone to bite on 
something
>  > bigger either as the application is solely VXLAN in a compact form 
factor.
>  > >
>  > > -Scott H
>  > >
>  > >> On Jul 4, 2018, at 2:20 PM, Pavel Lunin  
wrote:
>  > >>
>  > >> Btw, it's a very good question if anyone here has more or less 
close to
>  > real-world experience with L3 gw and evpn type 5 routes on QFX5110 
or maybe
>  > any other trident 2+ based box.
>  > >>
>  > >> Would much appreciate your input.
>  > >>
>  > >> Regards,
>  > >> Pavel
>  > >>
>  > >> July 3, 2018, 18:48 Roger Wiklund :
>  > >>> Hi Scott
>  > >>>
>  > >>> Should be fine as L2 GW. L3 GW and Route Type 5 support is 
quite
>  > recent.
>  > >>>
>  > >>> Beefier alternatives are QFX10002, or MX204 if you want to go 
MX route
>  > with
>  > >>> fewer ports. Both have custom ASICs with higher scale, and 
higher
>  > chance to
>  > >>> overcome caveats/limitations especially tied to chipset 
limitation.
>  > >>>
>  > >>> Regards
>  > >>> Roger
>  > >>>
>  > >>> On Tue, Jul 3, 2018 at 1:48 PM, Scott Harvanek <
>  > scott.harva...@login.com>
>  > >>> wrote:
>  > >>>
>  >  Is anyone on here running 5110s for VXLAN/VTEP/EVPN and run 
into any
>  >  issues?  I’ve gone over the caveats list Juniper has for 
these in
>  > regards
>  >  to what they won’t do in regards to VXLAN and it seems like 
they meet
>  > our
>  >  needs… just curious if anyone has run into any lesser 
documented
>  > issues
>  >  with them.
>  > 
>  >  I’m looking at the list here; https://www.juniper.net/
>  > 
>  > 
documentation/en_US/junos/topics/concept/vxlan-constraints-qfx-series.html
>  >  <
>  > 
https://www.juniper.net/documentation/en_US/junos/topics/concept/vxlan-
>  >  constraints-qfx-series.html>
>  > 
>  >  Is there a better device for VXLAN on the juniper side? We’re 
looking
>  > for
>  >  something comparable to the Nexus 9372 on the Cisco side.
>  > 
>  >  Cheers!
>  > 
>  >  Scott H
>  > 
>  > 
>  > 
>  >  ___
>  >  juniper-nsp mailing list juniper-nsp@puck.nether.net
>  >  
https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=https-3A__puck.nether.net_mailman_listinfo_juniper-2Dnsp=DwIFaQ=HAkYuh63rsuhr6Scbfh0UjBXeMK-ndb3voDTXcWzoCI=cViNvWbwxCvdnmDGDIbWYLiUsu8nisqLYXmd-x445bc=eVWy_z1Tt_vOBqrVgHiM_dtKdycFG7efWLRFNxJndQk=yjHoZdiJRmtZlTtQ9QIzFlqKEkKQX5MxD-94nTWLrWs=
>  > 
>

Re: [j-nsp] QFX5110 / VXLAN

2018-08-07 Thread Brian Rak


Are the QFX5200/QFX5210 also only layer 2 EVPN-VXLAN?

On 8/7/2018 1:42 PM, Richard McGovern wrote:

Correct.  For this functionality one needs either a 10K/MXPTX or EX9200 at 
current time.  These situations may also require EVPN-MPLS, versus EVPN-VXLAN.  
QFX5110 is limited to EVPN-VXLAN at least today.  QFX5100 provide L2 only 
EVPN-VXLAN.

Thanks for pointing this out.

On 8/6/18, 12:40 PM, "Mike Gonnason"  wrote:

 Be aware on the QFX5110 that L3 VXLAN is limited, You cannot route vxlan to
 vlan:
 https://prsearch.juniper.net/InfoCenter/index?page=prcontent=PR1318178
 
 
 
 On Wed, Jul 4, 2018 at 3:51 PM Brant Ian Stevens <

 bra...@argentiumsolutions.com> wrote:
 
 > And now there's the announcement of the QFX5120 and EX4650 to the mix.

 > Those are Trident-3 based, if I am not mistaken.  Boxes look great on
 > paper...
 >
 > --
 > Regards,
 > --
 > Brant I. Stevens, Principal & Consulting Architect
 > bra...@argentiumsolutions.com
 > d:212.931.8566, x101 <(212)%20931-8566>. m:917.673.6536 
<(917)%20673-6536>.
 > f:917.525.4759 <(917)%20525-4759>.
 > 
https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=http-3A__argentiumsolutions.com=DwIFaQ=HAkYuh63rsuhr6Scbfh0UjBXeMK-ndb3voDTXcWzoCI=cViNvWbwxCvdnmDGDIbWYLiUsu8nisqLYXmd-x445bc=eVWy_z1Tt_vOBqrVgHiM_dtKdycFG7efWLRFNxJndQk=OmeaqZQV835ARTQIMsk32-c0AQ4PSf50LLpVss0TzuM=
 >
 > On 7/4/18 5:03 PM, Scott Harvanek wrote:
 > > Cost is a factor I don’t think I can get anyone to bite on something
 > bigger either as the application is solely VXLAN in a compact form 
factor.
 > >
 > > -Scott H
 > >
 > >> On Jul 4, 2018, at 2:20 PM, Pavel Lunin  wrote:
 > >>
 > >> Btw, it's a very good question if anyone here has more or less close 
to
 > real-world experience with L3 gw and evpn type 5 routes on QFX5110 or 
maybe
 > any other trident 2+ based box.
 > >>
 > >> Would much appreciate your input.
 > >>
 > >> Regards,
 > >> Pavel
 > >>
 > >> July 3, 2018, 18:48 Roger Wiklund :
 > >>> Hi Scott
 > >>>
 > >>> Should be fine as L2 GW. L3 GW and Route Type 5 support is quite
 > recent.
 > >>>
 > >>> Beefier alternatives are QFX10002, or MX204 if you want to go MX 
route
 > with
 > >>> fewer ports. Both have custom ASICs with higher scale, and higher
 > chance to
 > >>> overcome caveats/limitations especially tied to chipset limitation.
 > >>>
 > >>> Regards
 > >>> Roger
 > >>>
 > >>> On Tue, Jul 3, 2018 at 1:48 PM, Scott Harvanek <
 > scott.harva...@login.com>
 > >>> wrote:
 > >>>
 >  Is anyone on here running 5110s for VXLAN/VTEP/EVPN and run into any
 >  issues?  I’ve gone over the caveats list Juniper has for these in
 > regards
 >  to what they won’t do in regards to VXLAN and it seems like they 
meet
 > our
 >  needs… just curious if anyone has run into any lesser documented
 > issues
 >  with them.
 > 
 >  I’m looking at the list here; https://www.juniper.net/
 > 
 > 
documentation/en_US/junos/topics/concept/vxlan-constraints-qfx-series.html
 >  <
 > https://www.juniper.net/documentation/en_US/junos/topics/concept/vxlan-
 >  constraints-qfx-series.html>
 > 
 >  Is there a better device for VXLAN on the juniper side? We’re 
looking
 > for
 >  something comparable to the Nexus 9372 on the Cisco side.
 > 
 >  Cheers!
 > 
 >  Scott H
 > 
 > 
 > 
 >  ___
 >  juniper-nsp mailing list juniper-nsp@puck.nether.net
 >  
https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=https-3A__puck.nether.net_mailman_listinfo_juniper-2Dnsp=DwIFaQ=HAkYuh63rsuhr6Scbfh0UjBXeMK-ndb3voDTXcWzoCI=cViNvWbwxCvdnmDGDIbWYLiUsu8nisqLYXmd-x445bc=eVWy_z1Tt_vOBqrVgHiM_dtKdycFG7efWLRFNxJndQk=yjHoZdiJRmtZlTtQ9QIzFlqKEkKQX5MxD-94nTWLrWs=
 > 
 > >>> ___
 > >>> juniper-nsp mailing list juniper-nsp@puck.nether.net
 > >>> 
https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=https-3A__puck.nether.net_mailman_listinfo_juniper-2Dnsp=DwIFaQ=HAkYuh63rsuhr6Scbfh0UjBXeMK-ndb3voDTXcWzoCI=cViNvWbwxCvdnmDGDIbWYLiUsu8nisqLYXmd-x445bc=eVWy_z1Tt_vOBqrVgHiM_dtKdycFG7efWLRFNxJndQk=yjHoZdiJRmtZlTtQ9QIzFlqKEkKQX5MxD-94nTWLrWs=
 > > ___
 > > juniper-nsp mailing list juniper-nsp@puck.nether.net
 > > 
https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=https-3A__puck.nether.net_mailman_listinfo_juniper-2Dnsp=DwIFaQ=HAkYuh63rsuhr6Scbfh0UjBXeMK-ndb3voDTXcWzoCI=cViNvWbwxCvdnmDGDIbWYLiUsu8nisqLYXmd-x445bc=eVWy_z1Tt_vOBqrVgHiM_dtKdycFG7efWLRFNxJndQk=yjHoZdiJRmtZlTtQ9QIzFlqKEkKQX5MxD-94nTWLrWs=
 > ___
 > juniper-nsp mailing

Re: [j-nsp] QFX5110 / VXLAN

2018-08-07 Thread Richard McGovern

Correct.  For this functionality one needs either a 10K/MXPTX or EX9200 at 
current time.  These situations may also require EVPN-MPLS, versus EVPN-VXLAN.  
QFX5110 is limited to EVPN-VXLAN at least today.  QFX5100 provide L2 only 
EVPN-VXLAN.

Thanks for pointing this out.

On 8/6/18, 12:40 PM, "Mike Gonnason"  wrote:

Be aware on the QFX5110 that L3 VXLAN is limited, You cannot route vxlan to
vlan:
https://prsearch.juniper.net/InfoCenter/index?page=prcontent=PR1318178



On Wed, Jul 4, 2018 at 3:51 PM Brant Ian Stevens <
bra...@argentiumsolutions.com> wrote:

> And now there's the announcement of the QFX5120 and EX4650 to the mix.
> Those are Trident-3 based, if I am not mistaken.  Boxes look great on
> paper...
>
> --
> Regards,
> --
> Brant I. Stevens, Principal & Consulting Architect
> bra...@argentiumsolutions.com
> d:212.931.8566, x101 <(212)%20931-8566>. m:917.673.6536 
<(917)%20673-6536>.
> f:917.525.4759 <(917)%20525-4759>.
> 
https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=http-3A__argentiumsolutions.com=DwIFaQ=HAkYuh63rsuhr6Scbfh0UjBXeMK-ndb3voDTXcWzoCI=cViNvWbwxCvdnmDGDIbWYLiUsu8nisqLYXmd-x445bc=eVWy_z1Tt_vOBqrVgHiM_dtKdycFG7efWLRFNxJndQk=OmeaqZQV835ARTQIMsk32-c0AQ4PSf50LLpVss0TzuM=
>
> On 7/4/18 5:03 PM, Scott Harvanek wrote:
> > Cost is a factor I don’t think I can get anyone to bite on something
> bigger either as the application is solely VXLAN in a compact form factor.
> >
> > -Scott H
> >
> >> On Jul 4, 2018, at 2:20 PM, Pavel Lunin  wrote:
> >>
> >> Btw, it's a very good question if anyone here has more or less close to
> real-world experience with L3 gw and evpn type 5 routes on QFX5110 or 
maybe
> any other trident 2+ based box.
> >>
> >> Would much appreciate your input.
> >>
> >> Regards,
> >> Pavel
> >>
> >> July 3, 2018, 18:48 Roger Wiklund :
> >>> Hi Scott
> >>>
> >>> Should be fine as L2 GW. L3 GW and Route Type 5 support is quite
> recent.
> >>>
> >>> Beefier alternatives are QFX10002, or MX204 if you want to go MX route
> with
> >>> fewer ports. Both have custom ASICs with higher scale, and higher
> chance to
> >>> overcome caveats/limitations especially tied to chipset limitation.
> >>>
> >>> Regards
> >>> Roger
> >>>
> >>> On Tue, Jul 3, 2018 at 1:48 PM, Scott Harvanek <
> scott.harva...@login.com>
> >>> wrote:
> >>>
>  Is anyone on here running 5110s for VXLAN/VTEP/EVPN and run into any
>  issues?  I’ve gone over the caveats list Juniper has for these in
> regards
>  to what they won’t do in regards to VXLAN and it seems like they meet
> our
>  needs… just curious if anyone has run into any lesser documented
> issues
>  with them.
> 
>  I’m looking at the list here; https://www.juniper.net/
> 
> documentation/en_US/junos/topics/concept/vxlan-constraints-qfx-series.html
>  <
> https://www.juniper.net/documentation/en_US/junos/topics/concept/vxlan-
>  constraints-qfx-series.html>
> 
>  Is there a better device for VXLAN on the juniper side? We’re looking
> for
>  something comparable to the Nexus 9372 on the Cisco side.
> 
>  Cheers!
> 
>  Scott H
> 
> 
> 
>  ___
>  juniper-nsp mailing list juniper-nsp@puck.nether.net
>  
https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=https-3A__puck.nether.net_mailman_listinfo_juniper-2Dnsp=DwIFaQ=HAkYuh63rsuhr6Scbfh0UjBXeMK-ndb3voDTXcWzoCI=cViNvWbwxCvdnmDGDIbWYLiUsu8nisqLYXmd-x445bc=eVWy_z1Tt_vOBqrVgHiM_dtKdycFG7efWLRFNxJndQk=yjHoZdiJRmtZlTtQ9QIzFlqKEkKQX5MxD-94nTWLrWs=
> 
> >>> ___
> >>> juniper-nsp mailing list juniper-nsp@puck.nether.net
> >>> 
https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=https-3A__puck.nether.net_mailman_listinfo_juniper-2Dnsp=DwIFaQ=HAkYuh63rsuhr6Scbfh0UjBXeMK-ndb3voDTXcWzoCI=cViNvWbwxCvdnmDGDIbWYLiUsu8nisqLYXmd-x445bc=eVWy_z1Tt_vOBqrVgHiM_dtKdycFG7efWLRFNxJndQk=yjHoZdiJRmtZlTtQ9QIzFlqKEkKQX5MxD-94nTWLrWs=
> > ___
> > juniper-nsp mailing list juniper-nsp@puck.nether.net
> > 
https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=https-3A__puck.nether.net_mailman_listinfo_juniper-2Dnsp=DwIFaQ=HAkYuh63rsuhr6Scbfh0UjBXeMK-ndb3voDTXcWzoCI=cViNvWbwxCvdnmDGDIbWYLiUsu8nisqLYXmd-x445bc=eVWy_z1Tt_vOBqrVgHiM_dtKdycFG7efWLRFNxJndQk=yjHoZdiJRmtZlTtQ9QIzFlqKEkKQX5MxD-94nTWLrWs=
> ___
> juniper-nsp mailing list juniper-nsp@puck.nether.net
>

Re: [j-nsp] QFX5110 / VXLAN

2018-08-06 Thread Mike Gonnason

Be aware on the QFX5110 that L3 VXLAN is limited, You cannot route vxlan to
vlan:
https://prsearch.juniper.net/InfoCenter/index?page=prcontent=PR1318178



On Wed, Jul 4, 2018 at 3:51 PM Brant Ian Stevens <
bra...@argentiumsolutions.com> wrote:

> And now there's the announcement of the QFX5120 and EX4650 to the mix.
> Those are Trident-3 based, if I am not mistaken.  Boxes look great on
> paper...
>
> --
> Regards,
> --
> Brant I. Stevens, Principal & Consulting Architect
> bra...@argentiumsolutions.com
> d:212.931.8566, x101 <(212)%20931-8566>. m:917.673.6536 <(917)%20673-6536>.
> f:917.525.4759 <(917)%20525-4759>.
> http://argentiumsolutions.com
>
> On 7/4/18 5:03 PM, Scott Harvanek wrote:
> > Cost is a factor I don’t think I can get anyone to bite on something
> bigger either as the application is solely VXLAN in a compact form factor.
> >
> > -Scott H
> >
> >> On Jul 4, 2018, at 2:20 PM, Pavel Lunin  wrote:
> >>
> >> Btw, it's a very good question if anyone here has more or less close to
> real-world experience with L3 gw and evpn type 5 routes on QFX5110 or maybe
> any other trident 2+ based box.
> >>
> >> Would much appreciate your input.
> >>
> >> Regards,
> >> Pavel
> >>
> >> July 3, 2018, 18:48 Roger Wiklund :
> >>> Hi Scott
> >>>
> >>> Should be fine as L2 GW. L3 GW and Route Type 5 support is quite
> recent.
> >>>
> >>> Beefier alternatives are QFX10002, or MX204 if you want to go MX route
> with
> >>> fewer ports. Both have custom ASICs with higher scale, and higher
> chance to
> >>> overcome caveats/limitations especially tied to chipset limitation.
> >>>
> >>> Regards
> >>> Roger
> >>>
> >>> On Tue, Jul 3, 2018 at 1:48 PM, Scott Harvanek <
> scott.harva...@login.com>
> >>> wrote:
> >>>
>  Is anyone on here running 5110s for VXLAN/VTEP/EVPN and run into any
>  issues?  I’ve gone over the caveats list Juniper has for these in
> regards
>  to what they won’t do in regards to VXLAN and it seems like they meet
> our
>  needs… just curious if anyone has run into any lesser documented
> issues
>  with them.
> 
>  I’m looking at the list here; https://www.juniper.net/
> 
> documentation/en_US/junos/topics/concept/vxlan-constraints-qfx-series.html
>  <
> https://www.juniper.net/documentation/en_US/junos/topics/concept/vxlan-
>  constraints-qfx-series.html>
> 
>  Is there a better device for VXLAN on the juniper side? We’re looking
> for
>  something comparable to the Nexus 9372 on the Cisco side.
> 
>  Cheers!
> 
>  Scott H
> 
> 
> 
>  ___
>  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
> > ___
> > 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
>
___
juniper-nsp mailing list juniper-nsp@puck.nether.net
https://puck.nether.net/mailman/listinfo/juniper-nsp

Re: [j-nsp] QFX5110 / VXLAN

2018-07-04 Thread Scott Harvanek

Cost is a factor I don’t think I can get anyone to bite on something bigger 
either as the application is solely VXLAN in a compact form factor.  

-Scott H

> On Jul 4, 2018, at 2:20 PM, Pavel Lunin  wrote:
> 
> Btw, it's a very good question if anyone here has more or less close to 
> real-world experience with L3 gw and evpn type 5 routes on QFX5110 or maybe 
> any other trident 2+ based box.
> 
> Would much appreciate your input.
> 
> Regards,
> Pavel
> 
> July 3, 2018, 18:48 Roger Wiklund :
>> Hi Scott
>> 
>> Should be fine as L2 GW. L3 GW and Route Type 5 support is quite recent.
>> 
>> Beefier alternatives are QFX10002, or MX204 if you want to go MX route with
>> fewer ports. Both have custom ASICs with higher scale, and higher chance to
>> overcome caveats/limitations especially tied to chipset limitation.
>> 
>> Regards
>> Roger
>> 
>> On Tue, Jul 3, 2018 at 1:48 PM, Scott Harvanek 
>> wrote:
>> 
>> > Is anyone on here running 5110s for VXLAN/VTEP/EVPN and run into any
>> > issues?  I’ve gone over the caveats list Juniper has for these in regards
>> > to what they won’t do in regards to VXLAN and it seems like they meet our
>> > needs… just curious if anyone has run into any lesser documented issues
>> > with them.
>> >
>> > I’m looking at the list here; https://www.juniper.net/
>> > documentation/en_US/junos/topics/concept/vxlan-constraints-qfx-series.html
>> > > > constraints-qfx-series.html>
>> >
>> > Is there a better device for VXLAN on the juniper side? We’re looking for
>> > something comparable to the Nexus 9372 on the Cisco side.
>> >
>> > Cheers!
>> >
>> > Scott H
>> >
>> >
>> >
>> > ___
>> > 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
___
juniper-nsp mailing list juniper-nsp@puck.nether.net
https://puck.nether.net/mailman/listinfo/juniper-nsp

Re: [j-nsp] QFX5110 / VXLAN

2018-07-04 Thread Pavel Lunin

Btw, it's a very good question if anyone here has more or less close to
real-world experience with L3 gw and evpn type 5 routes on QFX5110 or maybe
any other trident 2+ based box.

Would much appreciate your input.

Regards,
Pavel

July 3, 2018, 18:48 Roger Wiklund :

> Hi Scott
>
> Should be fine as L2 GW. L3 GW and Route Type 5 support is quite recent.
>
> Beefier alternatives are QFX10002, or MX204 if you want to go MX route with
> fewer ports. Both have custom ASICs with higher scale, and higher chance to
> overcome caveats/limitations especially tied to chipset limitation.
>
> Regards
> Roger
>
> On Tue, Jul 3, 2018 at 1:48 PM, Scott Harvanek 
> wrote:
>
> > Is anyone on here running 5110s for VXLAN/VTEP/EVPN and run into any
> > issues?  I’ve gone over the caveats list Juniper has for these in regards
> > to what they won’t do in regards to VXLAN and it seems like they meet our
> > needs… just curious if anyone has run into any lesser documented issues
> > with them.
> >
> > I’m looking at the list here; https://www.juniper.net/
> >
> documentation/en_US/junos/topics/concept/vxlan-constraints-qfx-series.html
> >  > constraints-qfx-series.html>
> >
> > Is there a better device for VXLAN on the juniper side? We’re looking for
> > something comparable to the Nexus 9372 on the Cisco side.
> >
> > Cheers!
> >
> > Scott H
> >
> >
> >
> > ___
> > 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
>
___
juniper-nsp mailing list juniper-nsp@puck.nether.net
https://puck.nether.net/mailman/listinfo/juniper-nsp

Re: [j-nsp] QFX5110 / VXLAN

2018-07-03 Thread Roger Wiklund

Hi Scott

Should be fine as L2 GW. L3 GW and Route Type 5 support is quite recent.

Beefier alternatives are QFX10002, or MX204 if you want to go MX route with
fewer ports. Both have custom ASICs with higher scale, and higher chance to
overcome caveats/limitations especially tied to chipset limitation.

Regards
Roger

On Tue, Jul 3, 2018 at 1:48 PM, Scott Harvanek 
wrote:

> Is anyone on here running 5110s for VXLAN/VTEP/EVPN and run into any
> issues?  I’ve gone over the caveats list Juniper has for these in regards
> to what they won’t do in regards to VXLAN and it seems like they meet our
> needs… just curious if anyone has run into any lesser documented issues
> with them.
>
> I’m looking at the list here; https://www.juniper.net/
> documentation/en_US/junos/topics/concept/vxlan-constraints-qfx-series.html
>  constraints-qfx-series.html>
>
> Is there a better device for VXLAN on the juniper side? We’re looking for
> something comparable to the Nexus 9372 on the Cisco side.
>
> Cheers!
>
> Scott H
>
>
>
> ___
> 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

[j-nsp] QFX5110 / VXLAN

2018-07-03 Thread Scott Harvanek

Is anyone on here running 5110s for VXLAN/VTEP/EVPN and run into any issues?  
I’ve gone over the caveats list Juniper has for these in regards to what they 
won’t do in regards to VXLAN and it seems like they meet our needs… just 
curious if anyone has run into any lesser documented issues with them.

I’m looking at the list here; 
https://www.juniper.net/documentation/en_US/junos/topics/concept/vxlan-constraints-qfx-series.html
 


Is there a better device for VXLAN on the juniper side? We’re looking for 
something comparable to the Nexus 9372 on the Cisco side.

Cheers!

Scott H



___
juniper-nsp mailing list juniper-nsp@puck.nether.net
https://puck.nether.net/mailman/listinfo/juniper-nsp

Re: [j-nsp] QFX5110 / VXLAN

Re: [j-nsp] QFX5110 / VXLAN

Re: [j-nsp] QFX5110 / VXLAN

Re: [j-nsp] QFX5110 / VXLAN

Re: [j-nsp] QFX5110 / VXLAN

Re: [j-nsp] QFX5110 / VXLAN

Re: [j-nsp] QFX5110 / VXLAN

[j-nsp] QFX5110 / VXLAN

8 matches

Site Navigation

Mail list logo

Footer information