[119308] in North American Network Operators' Group
Re: Layer 2 vs. Layer 3 to TOR
daemon@ATHENA.MIT.EDU (Olof Kasselstrand)
Fri Nov 13 02:02:20 2009
In-Reply-To: <4AFC9E2C.2040900@bromirski.net>
Date: Fri, 13 Nov 2009 08:01:32 +0100
From: Olof Kasselstrand <olof.kasselstrand@gmail.com>
Cc: nanog@nanog.org
Errors-To: nanog-bounces+nanog.discuss=bloom-picayune.mit.edu@nanog.org
I would suggest doing a VC with the TOR switches. That way you can
have "one" switch for a lot of racks (I believe 10 would be the upper
limit if using Juniper). If you have a VC you could do L3 and L2
where needed on every rack that the VC covers.
// Olof
2009/11/13 =A3ukasz Bromirski <lukasz@bromirski.net>:
> On 2009-11-12 22:37, David Coulson wrote:
>
>> The MX-series are pretty nice. That should be able to do VPLS PE,
>> however I've never tried it - MX240 did it pretty well last time I
>> tried. I've no clue how the cost of that switch compares to a cisco 4900
>> or something (not that a 4900 is anything special - L3 is all in
>> software).
>
> For both 4948/4948-10GE and 4900M L3 is in hardware. For
> 4948/4948-10GE IPv6 is in software, for 4900M it's in hardware.
>
> --
> "Everything will be okay in the end. | =A0 =A0 =A0 =A0 =A0 =A0 =A0 =A0 =
=A0=A3ukasz Bromirski
> =A0If it's not okay, it's not the end. | =A0 =A0 =A0 http://lukasz.bromir=
ski.net
>
>
