[j-nsp] EX4550 or QFX5100 for Core

[Giovanni Bellac via juniper-nsp]

Hi all,

we have migrated our core (8-10x Racks, BGP default route, LACP to the ToR, VLAN, L3, nothing fancy) to a VC of 2x 4200-24T with 12.3R12-S9. 12.3R12-Sx is a recommend version for EX4200. We have had a kernel panic (no JTAC) and I am not confident with this old setup anymore.

Our older stack of 2x 4200-24T with 12.3R6.6 has done its job for years without any problems.

(PS: We have first migrated to 15.1R7-S1 on the new VC - it was terribly buggy - Guys, 15.1 is a JTAC recommend version... I have the feeling and of course reading the mailinglists that Juniper has no inhouse testing anymore ? Note to me: RTFM(ailinglist) first.)

So, we want something new with JTAC support. We need (1/10G)-Base-T, VLAN, L3, nothing fancy, but stable. We have 3k ARP entries.

Option 1) 2x EX4550

Option 2) 2x QFX5100

We want to keep simplicity in and therefore want to use VC. We are pushing some Gbit/s from Rack-to-Rack (backups) and to our two upstreams around 500-600Mbit/s.
QFX5100 hardware seems to be MUCH better than EX4550 hardware. The ARP table size, hash table size etc. on EX4550 is relatively small.
I have read (mailinglists, reddit) that VC is not a good idea on QFX5100 (bugs, bugs, bugs).

Can somebody with these devices in the network can give me some up to date insights?

Thanks in advance!

Kind regards,
Giovanni
_______________________________________________
juniper-nsp mailing list juniper-***@puck.nether.net
https://puck.nether.net/mailman/listinfo/juniper-nsp

[Nelson, Brian]

I have 2x QFX5100-96s for an L2 core in a VC. Primary function is
mitigating exuberant computer research traffic; I have some unique
firewalls on every interface uplink to an EX2200/4200. Twice a year we
also push 8.5Gbs for 180 minutes to image systems on an EX4200 stack; no
other traffic notices the load.

No problems; but I am not using any L3 protocols --yet. All the cool
kids keep emphasizing I should implement EVPN with the MX router. I
don't see the business justification yet.

Brian Nelson

Post by Giovanni Bellac via juniper-nsp
Hi all,
we have migrated our core (8-10x Racks, BGP default route, LACP to the ToR, VLAN, L3, nothing fancy) to a VC of 2x 4200-24T with 12.3R12-S9. 12.3R12-Sx is a recommend version for EX4200. We have had a kernel panic (no JTAC) and I am not confident with this old setup anymore.
Our older stack of 2x 4200-24T with 12.3R6.6 has done its job for years without any problems.
(PS: We have first migrated to 15.1R7-S1 on the new VC - it was terribly buggy - Guys, 15.1 is a JTAC recommend version... I have the feeling and of course reading the mailinglists that Juniper has no inhouse testing anymore ? Note to me: RTFM(ailinglist) first.)
So, we want something new with JTAC support. We need (1/10G)-Base-T, VLAN, L3, nothing fancy, but stable. We have 3k ARP entries.
Option 1) 2x EX4550
Option 2) 2x QFX5100
We want to keep simplicity in and therefore want to use VC. We are pushing some Gbit/s from Rack-to-Rack (backups) and to our two upstreams around 500-600Mbit/s.
QFX5100 hardware seems to be MUCH better than EX4550 hardware. The ARP table size, hash table size etc. on EX4550 is relatively small.
I have read (mailinglists, reddit) that VC is not a good idea on QFX5100 (bugs, bugs, bugs).
Can somebody with these devices in the network can give me some up to date insights?
Thanks in advance!
Kind regards,
Giovanni
_______________________________________________
https://puck.nether.net/mailman/listinfo/juniper-nsp

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

[Thomas Bellman]

This post might be inappropriate. Click to display it.

[Mark Tinka]

Post by Giovanni Bellac via juniper-nsp
We want to keep simplicity in and therefore want to use VC. We are pushing some Gbit/s from Rack-to-Rack (backups) and to our two upstreams around 500-600Mbit/s.
QFX5100 hardware seems to be MUCH better than EX4550 hardware. The ARP table size, hash table size etc. on EX4550 is relatively small.

Watch out for small buffers (4MB shared) on the EX4550.

Mark.
_______________________________________________
juniper-nsp mailing list juniper-***@puck.nether.net
https://puck.nether.net/mailman/listinfo/juniper-nsp

[Richard McGovern]

I would highly recommend going with QFX5110 instead of QFX5100 – same everything but QFX5110 offers L3 VXLAN which QFX5100 does not. I know you do not need this today, but down the road who knows. EVPN/VXLAN appears to be the new architecture for most networks, plus QFX5110 has QSFP28 interfaces to support 40 and 100, while QFX5100 has only QSFP+ to support 40GE. For both products, the 40GE can be channelized into 4 x 10GE.

I would NOT go with EX4550. Yes, do NOT run 15.1 (Rx-Sy) on any legacy EX product. Just stay with 12.3 and you’ll very likely be much happier.

One other reason, I believe, is that price of QFX5110 is less than both QFX5100/EX4550.

You’ll want to run 15.1X53-D[latest] on your QFX5110, unless you are using EVPN/VXLAN, and then 17.3R3, I think is best, or maybe some 18.x. I would not consider 16.x or 17.x for any EX or QFX usage, outside of EX92xx.

Not sure who your Juniper partner or sales team are, but I would think they should/would tell you the same thing.

Good luck

Post by Giovanni Bellac via juniper-nsp
We want to keep simplicity in and therefore want to use VC. We are pushing some Gbit/s from Rack-to-Rack (backups) and to our two upstreams around 500-600Mbit/s.
QFX5100 hardware seems to be MUCH better than EX4550 hardware. The ARP table size, hash table size etc. on EX4550 is relatively small.

Watch out for small buffers (4MB shared) on the EX4550.

Mark.



_______________________________________________
juniper-nsp mailing list juniper-***@puck.nether.net
https://puck

[Mike Gonnason]

Have you considered EX4600?

It is like a QFX5100 but with less feature support. I have 2x in an MC-LAG
which has been great, but it supports Virtual Chassis too.

On Fri, Aug 3, 2018 at 7:44 AM Giovanni Bellac via juniper-nsp <

Post by Giovanni Bellac via juniper-nsp
Hi all,
we have migrated our core (8-10x Racks, BGP default route, LACP to the
ToR, VLAN, L3, nothing fancy) to a VC of 2x 4200-24T with 12.3R12-S9.
12.3R12-Sx is a recommend version for EX4200. We have had a kernel panic
(no JTAC) and I am not confident with this old setup anymore.
Our older stack of 2x 4200-24T with 12.3R6.6 has done its job for years
without any problems.
(PS: We have first migrated to 15.1R7-S1 on the new VC - it was terribly
buggy - Guys, 15.1 is a JTAC recommend version... I have the feeling and of
course reading the mailinglists that Juniper has no inhouse testing anymore
? Note to me: RTFM(ailinglist) first.)
So, we want something new with JTAC support. We need (1/10G)-Base-T, VLAN,
L3, nothing fancy, but stable. We have 3k ARP entries.
Option 1) 2x EX4550
Option 2) 2x QFX5100
We want to keep simplicity in and therefore want to use VC. We are pushing
some Gbit/s from Rack-to-Rack (backups) and to our two upstreams around
500-600Mbit/s.
QFX5100 hardware seems to be MUCH better than EX4550 hardware. The ARP
table size, hash table size etc. on EX4550 is relatively small.
I have read (mailinglists, reddit) that VC is not a good idea on QFX5100
(bugs, bugs, bugs).
Can somebody with these devices in the network can give me some up to date insights?
Thanks in advance!
Kind regards,
Giovanni
_______________________________________________
https://puck.nether.net/mailman/listinfo/juniper-nsp

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

[Giovanni Bellac via juniper-nsp]

Hi guys,
thank you for your responses.
Sorry, my first email was not clear enough that I require Base-T (copper) ports.
QFX5110 etc. are looking great on paper, but with copper optics the docs are saying:
###
Caution
Do not place a copper transceiver in an access port directly above or below another copper transceiver. Internal damage to the access ports and switch can occur. For copper transceivers, we recommend either using the top port row exclusively, or the bottom port row exclusively.###
So the options are limited with EX4550-32T and QFX5100-48T...
Kind regardsGiovanni


Am Dienstag, 7. August 2018, 11:50:33 MESZ hat James Stapley <***@ru.ac.za> Folgendes geschrieben:

I've also run 2xEX4600 in a VC for years as a collapsed core/distribution at my last workplace. Didn't use BGP, just OSPF for internal networks (mainly between them and the edge firewall (FGT), as they are single homed - so if you're getting full routes from a peer, I'm not sure how well they will do - the MX10s where I now work do NOT like big changes.... Of course, if the earlier EX series did the job for you, the 4600s should also be fine. 
The EX4600s worked very well in that environment - the syntax seems to be a mish-mash of EX and QFX series command sets, so I often found myself googling the exact syntax expected on EX4600 - I have no real hesitation recommending them. The QSFP slots also seem a nice upgrade potential beyond 10/20 Gb/s backbone. 
On Mon, 6 Aug 2018 at 19:08, Mike Gonnason <***@gmail.com> wrote:

Have you considered EX4600?

It is like a QFX5100 but with less feature support. I have 2x in an MC-LAG
which has been great, but it supports Virtual Chassis too.

On Fri, Aug 3, 2018 at 7:44 AM Giovanni Bellac via juniper-nsp <

Post by Giovanni Bellac via juniper-nsp
Hi all,
we have migrated our core (8-10x Racks, BGP default route, LACP to the
ToR, VLAN, L3, nothing fancy) to a VC of 2x 4200-24T with 12.3R12-S9.
12.3R12-Sx is a recommend version for EX4200. We have had a kernel panic
(no JTAC) and I am not confident with this old setup anymore.
Our older stack of 2x 4200-24T with 12.3R6.6 has done its job for years
without any problems.
(PS: We have first migrated to 15.1R7-S1 on the new VC - it was terribly
buggy - Guys, 15.1 is a JTAC recommend version... I have the feeling and of
course reading the mailinglists that Juniper has no inhouse testing anymore
? Note to me: RTFM(ailinglist) first.)
So, we want something new with JTAC support. We need (1/10G)-Base-T, VLAN,
L3, nothing fancy, but stable. We have 3k ARP entries.
Option 1) 2x EX4550
Option 2) 2x QFX5100
We want to keep simplicity in and therefore want to use VC. We are pushing
some Gbit/s from Rack-to-Rack (backups) and to our two upstreams around
500-600Mbit/s.
QFX5100 hardware seems to be MUCH better than EX4550 hardware. The ARP
table size, hash table size etc. on EX4550 is relatively small.
I have read (mailinglists, reddit) that VC is not a good idea on QFX5100
(bugs, bugs, bugs).
Can somebody with these devices in the network can give me some up to date insights?
Thanks in advance!
Kind regards,
Giovanni
_______________________________________________
https://puck.nether.net/mailman/listinfo/juniper-nsp

_______________________________________________
juniper-nsp mailing list juniper-***@puck.nether.net
https://puck.nether.net/mailman/listinfo/juniper-nsp
--
James Stapley
Network Architect
Information & Technology Services, Rhodes University
t: [phone]PO Box 94, Grahamstown, 6140, South Africa
www.ru.ac.za

_______________________________________________
juniper-nsp mailing list juniper-***@puck.nether.net
https://puck.nether.

[Thomas Bellman]

Post by Giovanni Bellac via juniper-nsp
Sorry, my first email was not clear enough that I require Base-T (copper) ports.
###
Caution
Do not place a copper transceiver in an access port directly above or below
another copper transceiver. Internal damage to the access ports and switch
can occur. For copper transceivers, we recommend either using the top port
row exclusively, or the bottom port row exclusively.
###

Some TP transceivers are small enough that it isn't a problem. But be
careful, and verify, if you go down that route.

More importantly, 10 Gbit/s TP transceivers are not supported. You can
buy such transceivers from some third-party vendors, but they *are*
violating the specifications for SFP+ ports, drawing more power than
SFP+ ports are required to deliver. It might work, as many switches
can deliver more power than the spec requires, or it might not. Or it
might work for a few transceivers, but not if you fill all ports with
such transceivers.

So, I agree, if you need 10Gbase-T, then the QFX5110 or EX4600 is not
what you should look at.

Post by Giovanni Bellac via juniper-nsp
So the options are limited with EX4550-32T and QFX5100-48T...
Kind regardsGiovanni

There is also the EX4300-48MP, with 24 TP ports that do 10/100/1000
Mbit/s, and 24 TP ports that do 1/2.5/5/10 Gbit/s. There is also a
slot for a module where you can get four SFP+ ports, two QSFP ports,
or one QSFP28 ports, if you need a couple of fiber connections.

I'm assuming that the EX4300-48MP is cheaper than a QFX5100-48T, but
I have never priced one, or used one. (Note that I believe you need
to buy an extra license to run OSPF, or use VRFs, on the EX4300, while
that is included in the base license for QFX5100. Both require extra
license to run BGP or IS-IS.)


/Bellman

[Richard McGovern]

The copper optic warning is 100% based on physical limitations, nothing else. People have “forced” optics into places they should not go, with poor results.

If you need more than a few 10GE-BaseT ports, then yes your best approach would be QFX5100-48T. I would still recommend staying away from EX4550 at this time, as its life expectancy is much less than any new QFX model (that is non-3500/3600).

At same time life expectancy of EX4550 is still greater than 5 years, so new QFX will be much longer.

My 2 cents worth.

Sent from my iPhone

Post by Thomas Bellman

Post by Giovanni Bellac via juniper-nsp
Sorry, my first email was not clear enough that I require Base-T
(copper) ports.
QFX5110 etc. are looking great on paper, but with copper optics the
###
Caution
Do not place a copper transceiver in an access port directly above or below
another copper transceiver. Internal damage to the access ports and switch
can occur. For copper transceivers, we recommend either using the top port
row exclusively, or the bottom port row exclusively.
###

Some TP transceivers are small enough that it isn't a problem. But be
careful, and verify, if you go down that route.
More importantly, 10 Gbit/s TP transceivers are not supported. You can
buy such transceivers from some third-party vendors, but they *are*
violating the specifications for SFP+ ports, drawing more power than
SFP+ ports are required to deliver. It might work, as many switches
can deliver more power than the spec requires, or it might not. Or it
might work for a few transceivers, but not if you fill all ports with
such transceivers.
So, I agree, if you need 10Gbase-T, then the QFX5110 or EX4600 is not
what you should look at.

Post by Giovanni Bellac via juniper-nsp
So the options are limited with EX4550-32T and QFX5100-48T...
Kind regardsGiovanni

There is also the EX4300-48MP, with 24 TP ports that do 10/100/1000
Mbit/s, and 24 TP ports that do 1/2.5/5/10 Gbit/s. There is also a
slot for a module where you can get four SFP+ ports, two QSFP ports,
or one QSFP28 ports, if you need a couple of fiber connections.
I'm assuming that the EX4300-48MP is cheaper than a QFX5100-48T, but
I have never priced one, or used one. (Note that I believe you need
to buy an extra license to run OSPF, or use VRFs, on the EX4300, while
that is included in the base license for QFX5100. Both require extra
license to run BGP or IS-IS.)
/Bellman

_______________________________________________
juniper-nsp mailing list juniper-***@puck.nether.net
https://puck.nether.net/mailman/listinfo/juni