JunOS Fusion Provider Edge

Tue Dec 18 06:33:02 UTC 2018

I've, generally, always been wary about these "satellite" systems since
Cisco introduced them with the ASR9000v back in 2012.

My whole thing is it being a closed system that requires the same vendor
hardware from start to finish. Back then, wiring things up redundantly
where all ports are in action was not possible, not sure where things
stand now but I guess there are solutions to that.

Ultimately, I didn't want to be in a position where I am no longer
satisfied with the solution, but my only recourse is to either lose the
investment or continue with the same vendor just to save face.

Recently, we had to vote with our feet as Juniper behaved badly on their
EX4550's and EX4600's. So we are now switching to Arista, including
getting rid of the old gear as it can't scale anymore. If we had gone
this satellite route, we'd have fewer options to maneuver.

The vendors love to push these systems because they say it will simplify
your life - and in essence, it probably will - but this is a proper
lock-in of note, and no vendor hates that.

Mark.

On 17/Dec/18 20:26, Matt Erculiani wrote:
> Fusion has made a lot more sense since Juniper changed the licensing
> model from every switch AND the MX to just the MX.
>
> We've deployed it in some of our sites. It is very cool from a
> forwarding plane perspective, but from a control plane standpoint it's
> very...meh. For example, you can't get SNMP oids for light levels or
> even read them right from the CLI. You have to log into the satellite
> switch like you would log into an FPC just to get light levels. That's
> probably the dumbest thing we've dealt with though. I've also heard
> you can have them do local L2 forwarding, which can be nice for
> latency and conserving uplink bandwidth, but we don't do any L2 that
> way so I wouldn't know the implications. From what we can tell though,
> it does give you Trio L3 performance and features with a MUCH cheaper
> port cost which is exactly what we were looking for, the extended
> reach of the chassis was just a fantastic bonus.
>
> We also REALLY like that we can have one pair of MX dists for a whole
> data center with hundreds of thousands of square feet of raised floor
> and deploy QFX5100 or EX4300 switches in every pod and haul back over
> just a few pairs of fiber. Saves a lot of time because all that's
> required to turn up a new connection is a cross connect in the pod. It
> also allows us to offer copper ports very far away from the MX device,
> which would normally require media converters.
>
> We've wanted to experiment with doing this over dark fiber in the
> metro as well, but we want to feel out any kinks locally before we add
> additional failure modes.
>
> Very interested in hearing about other's experiences with Fusion,
> good, bad, and ugly.
>
> -Matt
>
> On Mon, Dec 17, 2018 at 12:08 PM Mehmet Akcin <mehmet at akcin.net
> <mailto:mehmet at akcin.net>> wrote:
>
>     Hey there
>
>     Any ISP using Juniper Fusion Provider Edge? 
>
>     https://www.juniper.net/documentation/en_US/junos/information-products/pathway-pages/junos-fusion/junos-fusion.html
>
>
>     I am trying to chat with an engineer besides Juniper engineers to
>     understand how buggy (or not) this is to go on production for a
>     medium size ISP.
>
>     Any feedback good/bad appreciated. 
>     -- 
>     Mehmet
>     +1-424-298-1903
>

-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://mailman.nanog.org/pipermail/nanog/attachments/20181218/0692088f/attachment.html>