For many people eliminating L2 switching and building on top of a L3
network is a good thing, especially if you are using BGP as the control
plane.
I'm not sure I follow the two routers with 40GE interfaces if you are just
building L2 domains to interconnect people.
Phil
On 1/20/15, 8:0
On Mon, Jan 19, 2015 at 09:37:35PM -0500, Phil Bedard wrote:
> I think in fairly short order both TRILL and 802.1AQ will be depercated in
> place of VXLAN and using BGP EVPN as the control plane ala Juniper
> QFX5100/Nexus 9300.
We also evaluated VXLAN for IXP deployment, since Trident-2 introd
On 1/17/15, 7:15 PM, "Saku Ytti" wrote:
>On (2015-01-17 12:02 +0100), Marian Ďurkovič wrote:
>
>> Our experience after 100 days of production is only the best - TRILL
>>setup
>> is pretty straightforward and thanks to IS-IS it provides shortest-path
>> IP-like "routing" for L2 ethernet packet
On 19/01/2015 10:12, Marian Ďurkovič wrote:
> Thus if you use VPLS or SPB-M on Trident HW, the egress PE doesn't support
> per-flow loadbalancing on IXP participants' LAGs.
not completely true. Extreme XOS has an interesting hack to work around this.
Nick
On Sat, Jan 17, 2015 at 09:15:04PM +0200, Saku Ytti wrote:
> On (2015-01-17 12:02 +0100), Marian Ďurkovič wrote:
>
> > Our experience after 100 days of production is only the best - TRILL setup
> > is pretty straightforward and thanks to IS-IS it provides shortest-path
> > IP-like "routing" for
On (2015-01-17 12:02 +0100), Marian Ďurkovič wrote:
> Our experience after 100 days of production is only the best - TRILL setup
> is pretty straightforward and thanks to IS-IS it provides shortest-path
> IP-like "routing" for L2 ethernet packets over any reasonable topology
> out of the box (w
Last year we installed four 1RU TRILL switches in SIX - see
http://www.six.sk/images/trill_ring.png
Our experience after 100 days of production is only the best - TRILL setup
is pretty straightforward and thanks to IS-IS it provides shortest-path
IP-like "routing" for L2 ethernet packets over
We always adhere to JTAC:
http://kb.juniper.net/InfoCenter/index?page=content&id=KB21476&actp=SUBSCRI
PTION unless otherwise required by their support to change.
Currently it is Junos 13.2X51-D26.
My advice to you is to not use 14.1 unless you have a reason, as that is
more of a dev branch in ter
inal Message-
> From: Eduardo Schoedler
> Date: Tuesday, January 13, 2015 at 3:25 AM
> To: "nanog@nanog.org"
> Subject: Re: Recommended L2 switches for a new IXP
>
> >QFX5100 is SDN ready.
> >
> >--
> >Eduardo Schoedler
> >
> >
> &g
On Tue, Jan 13, 2015 at 4:45 PM, Stephen R. Carter
wrote:
> We love our 5100s here.
Out of interest: Are you running 13.2 or 14.1?
What features are you using?
Our own experiences with a bunch of 48 & 96 port machines running 14.1
is painful to say the least.
Richard
On Wednesday, January 14, 2015 12:47:09 AM Jeff Tantsura
wrote:
> Got you - artificially disabling 90% of the features
> otherwise supported by the OS and using half baked HAL
> makes product SDN ready! Sorry for the sarcasm, couldn¹t
> resist :)
I once tested a Junos release with the X blah bla
On Wednesday, January 14, 2015 12:25:30 AM Jeff Tantsura
wrote:
> AhhhŠ vertically integrated horizontal API¹s
Green, vertically integrated horizontal API's :-).
Mark.
signature.asc
Description: This is a digitally signed message part.
You can see what we have at the SIX here -
http://www.seattleix.net/topology.html
Mike
--
Michael K. Smith
mksm...@mac.com
On Jan 11, 2015, at 10:37 PM, Manuel Marín wrote:
Dear Nanog community
We are trying to build a new IXP in some US Metro areas where we have
multiple POPs and I was wond
: "nanog@nanog.org"
Subject: Re: Recommended L2 switches for a new IXP
>My mistake, it's the OCX1100.
>http://www.networkworld.com/article/2855056/sdn/juniper-unbundles-switch-h
>ardware-software.html
>
>2015-01-13 20:10 GMT-02:00 Jeff Tantsura :
>
>> What does i
>>
>> -Original Message-
>> From: Eduardo Schoedler
>> Date: Tuesday, January 13, 2015 at 3:25 AM
>> To: "nanog@nanog.org"
>> Subject: Re: Recommended L2 switches for a new IXP
>>
>>> QFX5100 is SDN ready.
>>>
>
e-
> From: Eduardo Schoedler
> Date: Tuesday, January 13, 2015 at 3:25 AM
> To: "nanog@nanog.org"
> Subject: Re: Recommended L2 switches for a new IXP
>
> >QFX5100 is SDN ready.
> >
> >--
> >Eduardo Schoedler
> >
> >
> >2015-01-1
AhhhŠ vertically integrated horizontal API¹s
Cheers,
Jeff
-Original Message-
From: Nick Hilliard
Date: Tuesday, January 13, 2015 at 2:23 PM
To: Jeff Tantsura , Eduardo Schoedler
, "nanog@nanog.org"
Subject: Re: Recommended L2 switches for a new IXP
>On 13/01/201
On 13/01/2015 22:10, Jeff Tantsura wrote:
> What does it mean - to be SDN ready?
it means "fully buzzword compliant".
Nick
What does it mean - to be SDN ready?
Cheers,
Jeff
-Original Message-
From: Eduardo Schoedler
Date: Tuesday, January 13, 2015 at 3:25 AM
To: "nanog@nanog.org"
Subject: Re: Recommended L2 switches for a new IXP
>QFX5100 is SDN ready.
>
>--
>Eduardo Schoedler
&g
Manuel Marín writes:
> Dear Nanog community
> [...] There are so many options that I don't know if it makes sense to
> start with a modular switch (usually expensive because the backplane,
> dual dc, dual CPU, etc) or start with a 1RU high density switch that
> support new protocols like Trill and
We love our 5100s here.
I have 4 48S, and 2 24q¹s.
Super fast, TISSU when it works is awesome as well... like, really awesome.
Stephen Carter | IT Systems Administrator | Gun Lake Tribal Gaming
Commission
1123 129th Avenue, Wayland, MI 49348
Phone 269.792.1773
On 1/13/15, 3:29 AM, "Stepan Kuc
QFX5100 is SDN ready.
--
Eduardo Schoedler
2015-01-13 6:29 GMT-02:00 Stepan Kucherenko :
> Is there any particular reason you prefer EX4600 over QFX5100 ? Not
> counting obvious differences like ports and upgrade options.
>
> It's the same chipset after all, and with all upgrades they have the
Is there any particular reason you prefer EX4600 over QFX5100 ? Not
counting obvious differences like ports and upgrade options.
It's the same chipset after all, and with all upgrades they have the
same 10G density (with breakouts). Is that because you can have more 40G
ports with EX4600 ?
I'm st
On Monday, January 12, 2015 11:41:20 PM Tony Wicks wrote:
> People seem to be avoiding recommending actual devices,
> well I would recommend the Juniper EX4600 -
>
> http://www.juniper.net/us/en/products-services/switching/
> ex-series/ex4600/
>
> They are affordable, highly scalable, stackable
On Mon, Jan 12, 2015 at 4:41 PM, Tony Wicks wrote:
> People seem to be avoiding recommending actual devices, well I would
> recommend the Juniper EX4600 -
>
> http://www.juniper.net/us/en/products-services/switching/ex-series/ex4600/
>
> They are affordable, highly scalable, stackable and run JunO
That's what I had recommended him directly ;)
Mehmet
> On Jan 12, 2015, at 1:41 PM, Tony Wicks wrote:
>
> People seem to be avoiding recommending actual devices, well I would
> recommend the Juniper EX4600 -
>
> http://www.juniper.net/us/en/products-services/switching/ex-series/ex4600/
>
> T
People seem to be avoiding recommending actual devices, well I would
recommend the Juniper EX4600 -
http://www.juniper.net/us/en/products-services/switching/ex-series/ex4600/
They are affordable, highly scalable, stackable and run JunOS.
cheers
On Monday, January 12, 2015 05:54:38 PM Bill Woodcock wrote:
> We see a lot of IXPs being formed or upgrading with Cisco
> Nexus 3524 switches, which have 48 1G-10G SFP/SFP+
> physical ports, license-limited to 24 active,
> upgradeable to 48 active.
>
> FWIW, 83% of IXPs have 48 or fewer particip
On Mon, Jan 12, 2015 at 10:43 AM, Nick Hilliard wrote:
[ clip, good stuff ]
- you should get in with the open-ix crowd and chat to people over pizza or
> peanuts. You will learn a lot from in an afternoon of immersion with
> peers.
>
And you can find that crowd here
http://mailman.open-ix.o
> On Jan 12, 2015, at 10:34 AM, Justin Wilson - MTIN wrote:
> Cost per port is what we always look at. If we are going into a market where
> there won’t be much growth we look at Cisco and Force 10. Their cost per
> port is usually cheaper for smaller 10 Gig switches. You need something that
Substantial amounts of hive mind went into this topic in the formation of
Open-IX and particularly around optimizing costs and maximizing traffic.
See http://bit.ly/N-OIX1 for a reference.
Best,
-M<
On Mon, Jan 12, 2015 at 10:34 AM, Justin Wilson - MTIN
wrote:
> Like Mike says, it depends o
On 12/01/2015 06:35, Manuel Marín wrote:
> We are trying to build a new IXP in some US Metro areas where we have
> multiple POPs and I was wondering what do you recommend for L2 switches. I
> know that some IXPs use Nexus, Brocade, Force10 but I don't personally have
> experience with these switche
Like Mike says, it depends on your market. Are these markets where there are
existing exchanges?
Cost per port is what we always look at. If we are going into a market where
there won’t be much growth we look at Cisco and Force 10. Their cost per port
is usually cheaper for smaller 10 Gig
We used to use Brocade FastIrons until we needed more 10G port density.
We moved to Brocade SX's.
Originally, when it was 2 or 3 peers, we used an old Netgear switch. :)
Aaron
On 1/12/2015 7:07 AM, Mike Hammett wrote:
I look forward to this thread.
I think one important thing is who is your
I look forward to this thread.
I think one important thing is who is your addressable market size? I'm working
with a startup IXP and there's only 20 carriers in the building. A chassis
based switch would be silly as there would never be that many people present.
2x 1U switches would be more t
35 matches
Mail list logo
