[177350] in North American Network Operators' Group
Re: Recommended L2 switches for a new IXP
daemon@ATHENA.MIT.EDU (Stephen R. Carter)
Tue Jan 13 11:41:42 2015
X-Original-To: nanog@nanog.org
From: "Stephen R. Carter" <stephen.carter@gltgc.org>
To: Stepan Kucherenko <twh@megagroup.ru>, "nanog@nanog.org" <nanog@nanog.org>
Date: Tue, 13 Jan 2015 15:45:22 +0000
In-Reply-To: <54B4D774.50600@megagroup.ru>
Errors-To: nanog-bounces@nanog.org
We love our 5100s here.
I have 4 48S, and 2 24q=B9s.
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=20
On 1/13/15, 3:29 AM, "Stepan Kucherenko" <twh@megagroup.ru> wrote:
>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 still trying to find out if there are any noticeable software or
>feature differences.
>
>On 13.01.2015 09:01, Mark Tinka wrote:
>> On Monday, January 12, 2015 11:41:20 PM Tony Wicks wrote:
>>=20
>>> 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.
>>=20
>> We've been quite happy with the EX4550, but the EX4600 is
>> good too, particularly if you're coming from its younger
>> brother.
>>=20
>> Mark.
>>=20
<br><hr><font face=3D'Arial' color=3D'Gray' size=3D'1'>The information cont=
ained in this electronic transmission (email) is confidential information a=
nd may be subject to attorney/client privilege. It is intended only for the=
use of the individual or entity named above. ANY DISTRIBUTION OR COPYING O=
F THIS MESSAGE IS PROHIBITED, except by the intended recipient. Attempts to=
intercept this message are in violation of 18 U.S.C. 2511(1) of the Electr=
onic Communications Privacy Act (ECPA), which subjects the interceptor to f=
ines, imprisonment and/or civil damages.</font>
