nanog mailing list archives
RE: QFX5k question
From: "Tony Wicks" <tony () wicks co nz>
Date: Sun, 24 Mar 2019 10:00:54 +1300
I have Virtual chassis QFX5100’s running as a switching/routing core with about 80k routes (bgp in routing-instances) and no issues. MX’s are on the upstream borders and downstream BNG’s. The only issue I has was I had some MPLS psuedowire switching on them and found a few glitches. From: NANOG <nanog-bounces () nanog org> On Behalf Of Joseph Jenkins Sent: Sunday, 24 March 2019 9:43 AM To: nanog <nanog () nanog org> Subject: Re: QFX5k question I have 4 QFX51xx switches in a virtual chassis and have no problems pushing that much traffic through them for several hundred servers with 10GB uplinks. On March 23, 2019 at 12:42:52 PM, Mehmet Akcin (mehmet () akcin net <mailto:mehmet () akcin net> ) wrote: Hey there, I am trying to get my hands on some QFX5000s and I have a rather quick question. In the past, I often used MX + EX where MX did routing and I connected all uplinks/peering and EX, and EX did switching, i connected my servers to ex. in QFX, I am trying to see if I need EX or not? more importantly (besides from what juniper papers say) are there any known issues people run into for a small scale deployment. (100mbps-1gbps range 1 rack, 20 servers) my plan is to have QFX to it all, but i am worried, if this is too much for QFX, if you have relative experience on this , feel free to let me know thanks in advance mehmet
Current thread:
- QFX5k question Mehmet Akcin (Mar 23)
- Re: QFX5k question Paul S. (Mar 23)
- Re: QFX5k question Mehmet Akcin (Mar 23)
- Re: QFX5k question Niels Bakker (Mar 23)
- Re: QFX5k question Sander Steffann (Mar 23)
- Re: QFX5k question Mehmet Akcin (Mar 23)
- Re: QFX5k question Joseph Jenkins (Mar 23)
- RE: QFX5k question Tony Wicks (Mar 23)
- Re: QFX5k question Grant Taylor via NANOG (Mar 23)
- Re: QFX5k question Thomas Bellman (Mar 23)
- Re: QFX5k question Denys Fedoryshchenko (Mar 24)
- Re: QFX5k question Paul S. (Mar 23)