Mailing List Archive: Cisco: NSP

Juniper equivalent for Cisco Cat 6500

Index | Next | Previous | View Threaded

andrew at 2sheds

May 23, 2012, 12:35 AM

Post #1 of 14 (1652 views)
Permalink

Juniper equivalent for Cisco Cat 6500

Hi all,

Does Juniper have a box equivalent to the Cat 6500s for 10G Ethernet MPLS
PE layer. I am looking for alternatives to the 6504s for collapsed PE/CEs
for a 10G campus Ethernet network. Unfortunately the Cat 4500s don't do
MPLS.

Thanks for any suggestions.

Regards

Andrew
_______________________________________________
cisco-nsp mailing list cisco-nsp [at] puck
https://puck.nether.net/mailman/listinfo/cisco-nsp
archive at http://puck.nether.net/pipermail/cisco-nsp/

mark.tinka at seacom

May 23, 2012, 12:42 AM

Post #2 of 14 (1614 views)
Permalink

Re: Juniper equivalent for Cisco Cat 6500 [In reply to]

On Wednesday, May 23, 2012 09:35:26 AM Andrew Miehs wrote:

> Does Juniper have a box equivalent to the Cat 6500s for
> 10G Ethernet MPLS PE layer. I am looking for
> alternatives to the 6504s for collapsed PE/CEs for a 10G
> campus Ethernet network. Unfortunately the Cat 4500s
> don't do MPLS.

The equivalent from Juniper to Cisco's 6500 is the EX8200 or
EX6200.

However, if you're looking to deploy MPLS services as well,
I'd say don't waste time with Juniper's EX switches and just
go for their MX480 or MX960 chassis'. They support typical
switching functions, but really are routers (which is what
sounds like you're doing with your 6500's).

Mark.
_______________________________________________
cisco-nsp mailing list cisco-nsp [at] puck
https://puck.nether.net/mailman/listinfo/cisco-nsp
archive at http://puck.nether.net/pipermail/cisco-nsp/

aledm at qix

May 23, 2012, 3:20 AM

Post #3 of 14 (1607 views)
Permalink

Re: Juniper equivalent for Cisco Cat 6500 [In reply to]

On 23 May 2012 08:35, Andrew Miehs <andrew [at] 2sheds> wrote:

> Hi all,
>
> Does Juniper have a box equivalent to the Cat 6500s for 10G Ethernet MPLS
> PE layer. I am looking for alternatives to the 6504s for collapsed PE/CEs
> for a 10G campus Ethernet network. Unfortunately the Cat 4500s don't do
> MPLS.
>

Cat 4500 isn't the Cisco replacement for Cat 6500 for MPLS deployment.

I'd look at the Cisco ASR9000 which is their MPLS platform of choice.

If you prefer a switch to a router you could look at the Cisco Nexus 7k - I
believe it supports MPLS now too.

Aled
_______________________________________________
cisco-nsp mailing list cisco-nsp [at] puck
https://puck.nether.net/mailman/listinfo/cisco-nsp
archive at http://puck.nether.net/pipermail/cisco-nsp/

mark.tinka at seacom

May 23, 2012, 3:32 AM

Post #4 of 14 (1620 views)
Permalink

Re: Juniper equivalent for Cisco Cat 6500 [In reply to]

On Wednesday, May 23, 2012 12:20:29 PM Aled Morris wrote:

> If you prefer a switch to a router you could look at the
> Cisco Nexus 7k - I believe it supports MPLS now too.

I'm guessing the OP is looking MPLS merely as a transport
mechanism. I have no experience with the Nexus 7000 system
(everytime I've thought of buying it, something more
sensible has come up), but I'd hazard that the ASR9000 would
be more serice-rich than the Nexus re: IP/MPLS.

I could be wrong, of course.

Mark.
_______________________________________________
cisco-nsp mailing list cisco-nsp [at] puck
https://puck.nether.net/mailman/listinfo/cisco-nsp
archive at http://puck.nether.net/pipermail/cisco-nsp/

p.mayers at imperial

May 23, 2012, 4:00 AM

Post #5 of 14 (1617 views)
Permalink

Re: Juniper equivalent for Cisco Cat 6500 [In reply to]

On 23/05/12 11:32, Mark Tinka wrote:
> On Wednesday, May 23, 2012 12:20:29 PM Aled Morris wrote:
>
>> If you prefer a switch to a router you could look at the
>> Cisco Nexus 7k - I believe it supports MPLS now too.
>
> I'm guessing the OP is looking MPLS merely as a transport
> mechanism. I have no experience with the Nexus 7000 system
> (everytime I've thought of buying it, something more
> sensible has come up), but I'd hazard that the ASR9000 would
> be more serice-rich than the Nexus re: IP/MPLS.

You're probably right, but the N7k is quite close in parity to the 6500,
in L3VPN-land. L2VPN (I am told) should similarly be more or less
equivalent to sup2T.

They're a surprisingly respectable box, and modulo "business unit focus"
concerns, it's looking difficult to justify a Sup2T...
_______________________________________________
cisco-nsp mailing list cisco-nsp [at] puck
https://puck.nether.net/mailman/listinfo/cisco-nsp
archive at http://puck.nether.net/pipermail/cisco-nsp/

mark.tinka at seacom

May 23, 2012, 4:16 AM

Post #6 of 14 (1612 views)
Permalink

Re: Juniper equivalent for Cisco Cat 6500 [In reply to]

On Wednesday, May 23, 2012 01:00:47 PM Phil Mayers wrote:

> You're probably right, but the N7k is quite close in
> parity to the 6500, in L3VPN-land. L2VPN (I am told)
> should similarly be more or less equivalent to sup2T.
>
> They're a surprisingly respectable box, and modulo
> "business unit focus" concerns, it's looking difficult
> to justify a Sup2T...

I'm thinking all those other non-MPLS features, e.g., QoS,
routing, EVC, e.t.c.

Mark.
_______________________________________________
cisco-nsp mailing list cisco-nsp [at] puck
https://puck.nether.net/mailman/listinfo/cisco-nsp
archive at http://puck.nether.net/pipermail/cisco-nsp/

p.mayers at imperial

May 23, 2012, 4:28 AM

Post #7 of 14 (1610 views)
Permalink

Re: Juniper equivalent for Cisco Cat 6500 [In reply to]

On 23/05/12 12:16, Mark Tinka wrote:
> On Wednesday, May 23, 2012 01:00:47 PM Phil Mayers wrote:
>
>> You're probably right, but the N7k is quite close in
>> parity to the 6500, in L3VPN-land. L2VPN (I am told)
>> should similarly be more or less equivalent to sup2T.
>>
>> They're a surprisingly respectable box, and modulo
>> "business unit focus" concerns, it's looking difficult
>> to justify a Sup2T...
>
> I'm thinking all those other non-MPLS features, e.g., QoS,
> routing, EVC, e.t.c.

My experience has been that the entire box, pretty much all features,
are "on a par" with 6500, including QoS and routing. The only
significant things I can think that are missing are L2VPN, service
modules and non-IP routing.

Of course your original message was ASR versus Nexus, and you're
doubtless correct that the ASR leads in every respect; but the 6500
versus Nexus is, in my opinion, a much closer run thing.
_______________________________________________
cisco-nsp mailing list cisco-nsp [at] puck
https://puck.nether.net/mailman/listinfo/cisco-nsp
archive at http://puck.nether.net/pipermail/cisco-nsp/

mark.tinka at seacom

May 23, 2012, 5:42 AM

Post #8 of 14 (1619 views)
Permalink

Re: Juniper equivalent for Cisco Cat 6500 [In reply to]

On Wednesday, May 23, 2012 01:28:58 PM Phil Mayers wrote:

> Of course your original message was ASR versus Nexus, and
> you're doubtless correct that the ASR leads in every
> respect; but the 6500 versus Nexus is, in my opinion, a
> much closer run thing.

Fair point :-).

Mark.
_______________________________________________
cisco-nsp mailing list cisco-nsp [at] puck
https://puck.nether.net/mailman/listinfo/cisco-nsp
archive at http://puck.nether.net/pipermail/cisco-nsp/

andrew at 2sheds

May 23, 2012, 5:49 AM

Post #9 of 14 (1605 views)
Permalink

Re: Juniper equivalent for Cisco Cat 6500 [In reply to]

Thanks to all so far who have responded.

ASR9000 would be great, but it doesn't compete on price with a 6504 - and
we currently don't need to extra performance. It is an Ethernet campus
installation. Sorry I wasn't clearer about that.

The issue I have is that I need to bring the price down on the edge. The
current design has a pair of 4500s acting as CEs connected to 6500s in the
core. Additional L2 access switches hang off the two CEs. The problem is
that once you start trying to peer 20 vrfs (802.1q) across these links you
end up with a lot of sub interfaces, and an extremely complicated CE
configuration. This is of course not to mention the HSRP and STP mess that
results on top of this...

Ideally I would move to a pair of 6504s (VSS) as PE/CEs, bring MPLS right
to the edge and terminate the SVIs directly on these boxes. The L2 access
switches - 4510s would then hang per port channel off the 6504s... I am
also considering suggesting using a single 6500, but the customer was
extremely keen on redundant boxes.

Thanks for any suggestions...

Andrew
_______________________________________________
cisco-nsp mailing list cisco-nsp [at] puck
https://puck.nether.net/mailman/listinfo/cisco-nsp
archive at http://puck.nether.net/pipermail/cisco-nsp/

dwcarder at wisc

May 23, 2012, 7:40 AM

Post #10 of 14 (1598 views)
Permalink

Re: Juniper equivalent for Cisco Cat 6500 [In reply to]

How many CE devices are you talking about?

Easiest way to save cash is to avoid licensing costs, so move all
routing to the "core".

Dale

Thus spake Andrew Miehs (andrew [at] 2sheds) on Wed, May 23, 2012 at 10:49:19PM +1000:
> Thanks to all so far who have responded.
>
> ASR9000 would be great, but it doesn't compete on price with a 6504 - and
> we currently don't need to extra performance. It is an Ethernet campus
> installation. Sorry I wasn't clearer about that.
>
> The issue I have is that I need to bring the price down on the edge. The
> current design has a pair of 4500s acting as CEs connected to 6500s in the
> core. Additional L2 access switches hang off the two CEs. The problem is
> that once you start trying to peer 20 vrfs (802.1q) across these links you
> end up with a lot of sub interfaces, and an extremely complicated CE
> configuration. This is of course not to mention the HSRP and STP mess that
> results on top of this...
>
> Ideally I would move to a pair of 6504s (VSS) as PE/CEs, bring MPLS right
> to the edge and terminate the SVIs directly on these boxes. The L2 access
> switches - 4510s would then hang per port channel off the 6504s... I am
> also considering suggesting using a single 6500, but the customer was
> extremely keen on redundant boxes.
>
> Thanks for any suggestions...
>
> Andrew
> _______________________________________________
> cisco-nsp mailing list cisco-nsp [at] puck
> https://puck.nether.net/mailman/listinfo/cisco-nsp
> archive at http://puck.nether.net/pipermail/cisco-nsp/
_______________________________________________
cisco-nsp mailing list cisco-nsp [at] puck
https://puck.nether.net/mailman/listinfo/cisco-nsp
archive at http://puck.nether.net/pipermail/cisco-nsp/

andrew at 2sheds

May 23, 2012, 8:00 AM

Post #11 of 14 (1605 views)
Permalink

Re: Juniper equivalent for Cisco Cat 6500 [In reply to]

On Thu, May 24, 2012 at 12:40 AM, Dale W. Carder <dwcarder [at] wisc> wrote:

>
> How many CE devices are you talking about?
>
> Easiest way to save cash is to avoid licensing costs, so move all
> routing to the "core".
>

About 150 pairs of CEs
_______________________________________________
cisco-nsp mailing list cisco-nsp [at] puck
https://puck.nether.net/mailman/listinfo/cisco-nsp
archive at http://puck.nether.net/pipermail/cisco-nsp/

mark.tinka at seacom

May 23, 2012, 9:14 AM

Post #12 of 14 (1602 views)
Permalink

Re: Juniper equivalent for Cisco Cat 6500 [In reply to]

On Wednesday, May 23, 2012 02:49:19 PM Andrew Miehs wrote:

> Ideally I would move to a pair of 6504s (VSS) as PE/CEs,
> bring MPLS right to the edge and terminate the SVIs
> directly on these boxes. The L2 access switches - 4510s
> would then hang per port channel off the 6504s... I am
> also considering suggesting using a single 6500, but the
> customer was extremely keen on redundant boxes.

Sounds like a job for the ME3600X. MPLS all the way into the
Access is what it's massively good at.

Mark.
_______________________________________________
cisco-nsp mailing list cisco-nsp [at] puck
https://puck.nether.net/mailman/listinfo/cisco-nsp
archive at http://puck.nether.net/pipermail/cisco-nsp/

dwcarder at wisc

May 23, 2012, 12:39 PM

Post #13 of 14 (1593 views)
Permalink

Re: Juniper equivalent for Cisco Cat 6500 [In reply to]

Thus spake Andrew Miehs (andrew [at] 2sheds) on Thu, May 24, 2012 at 01:00:15AM +1000:
> On Thu, May 24, 2012 at 12:40 AM, Dale W. Carder <dwcarder [at] wisc> wrote:
>
> > How many CE devices are you talking about?
> >
> > Easiest way to save cash is to avoid licensing costs, so move all
> > routing to the "core".
> >
>
> About 150 pairs of CEs

Should work fine on sup-2t. We average about 100 CE (layer 2 only,
typically 3750-12S stacks) per pair of cat6k-sup720. Then there is only
ipbase/SMI featureset downstream. For us in aggregate that amounted to
.6M (list) savings.

I'm not saying this is ideal, but cheap and it works.

Dale
_______________________________________________
cisco-nsp mailing list cisco-nsp [at] puck
https://puck.nether.net/mailman/listinfo/cisco-nsp
archive at http://puck.nether.net/pipermail/cisco-nsp/

andrew at 2sheds

May 23, 2012, 3:55 PM

Post #14 of 14 (1600 views)
Permalink

Re: Juniper equivalent for Cisco Cat 6500 [In reply to]

Thanks once again to everyone.

Will check out the brocade offering.
I had looked at the ME3xxx and 6524s but they only have 1g access ports. There is no ME4500-X...

I agree with daves suggestion and will probably be forced to go that route to save some money.

Sent from a mobile device

On 24/05/2012, at 5:39, "Dale W. Carder" <dwcarder [at] wisc> wrote:
>
> Should work fine on sup-2t. We average about 100 CE (layer 2 only,
> typically 3750-12S stacks) per pair of cat6k-sup720. Then there is only
> ipbase/SMI featureset downstream. For us in aggregate that amounted to
> .6M (list) savings.
>
> I'm not saying this is ideal, but cheap and it works.

_______________________________________________
cisco-nsp mailing list cisco-nsp [at] puck
https://puck.nether.net/mailman/listinfo/cisco-nsp
archive at http://puck.nether.net/pipermail/cisco-nsp/

Index | Next | Previous | View Threaded

Interested in having your list archived? Contact Gossamer Threads