QFX5k question

[tony at wicks.co.nz (Tony Wicks)]

I have Virtual chassis QFX5100â??s running as a switching/routing core with about 80k routes (bgp in routing-instances) and no issues. MXâ??s are on the upstream borders and downstream BNGâ??s. The only issue I has was I had some MPLS psuedowire switching on them and found a few glitches.

 

 

 

From: NANOG <nanog-bounces at nanog.org> On Behalf Of Joseph Jenkins
Sent: Sunday, 24 March 2019 9:43 AM
To: nanog <nanog at 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 at akcin.net <mailto:mehmet at 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

-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://mailman.nanog.org/pipermail/nanog/attachments/20190324/e23723f3/attachment.html>