Yeah, my take on that is that MPC0 is pretty much anything built-in on the MX5/80 - eg: the front 10G ports are xe-0/0/0
My guess is that the rear slot is just another MIC slot (slot 1) MPC 0 so something like sp-0/1/0 or whatever designation gets used. The front MIC slots are ge-1/0/0-19 and ge-1/1/0-19 etc. On 13 Nov 2013, at 3:33 pm, Skeeve Stevens <skeeve+juniper...@eintellegonetworks.com> wrote: > Isn't that using the front MIC slot though? > > The rear 'Services Slot' is an MPC slot isn't it? > > Based on the following: > > MS-MIC 16G - MS-MIC with 16 GB of memory provides 9GB of service throughput, > occupies single MIC slot on MX5, MX10, MX40, and MX80 3D Universal Edge > Routers, as well as on the MPC1, MPC2, and MPC3 cards for the MX2020, MX2010, > MX960, MX480, > and MX240 3D Universal Edge Router. > > MS-MPC-128 - MS-MPC with 128 GB of memory (32 GB per NPU), provides 60Gbps of > service throughput, occupies a single slot in MX2020, MX2010, MX960, MX480, > and MX240 3D Universal Edge Routers > > The rear picture of the MX80 at > http://www.juniper.net/shared/img/products/mx-series/mx80/mx80-rear-high.jpg > > Says "MPC 0" and "MIC 1" in smaller writing under it. > > From front right slot is also called "1/MIC 1" > > I think we need further clarification. > > > > > ...Skeeve > > Skeeve Stevens - eintellego Networks Pty Ltd > ske...@eintellegonetworks.com ; www.eintellegonetworks.com > Phone: 1300 239 038; Cell +61 (0)414 753 383 ; skype://skeeve > facebook.com/eintellegonetworks ; linkedin.com/in/skeeve > twitter.com/theispguy ; blog: www.theispguy.com > > The Experts Who The Experts Call > Juniper - Cisco - Cloud > > > On Wed, Nov 13, 2013 at 4:04 PM, Ben Dale <bd...@comlinx.com.au> wrote: > MS-MIC is out for the MX5-80: > > http://www.juniper.net/us/en/local/pdf/datasheets/1000454-en.pdf > > doesn't look like there isn't a services port on the back of the 104 though: > > http://www.juniper.net/shared/img/products/mx-series/mx104/mx104-rear-high.jpg > > maybe you can use one of the front slots? > > On 13 Nov 2013, at 2:52 pm, Skeeve Stevens > <skeeve+juniper...@eintellegonetworks.com> wrote: > > > Does anyone know how many users the MX104 will be able to handle though? > > > > The 4000 user limit on the MX80 was quite low. > > > > Does the MX104 have the services port on the back like the MX80? I'm > > waiting for the CGN Services card which was supposed to be released around > > now. > > > > > > ...Skeeve > > > > Skeeve Stevens - eintellego Networks Pty Ltd > > ske...@eintellegonetworks.com ; www.eintellegonetworks.com > > Phone: 1300 239 038; Cell +61 (0)414 753 383 ; skype://skeeve > > facebook.com/eintellegonetworks ; linkedin.com/in/skeeve > > twitter.com/theispguy ; blog: www.theispguy.com > > > > The Experts Who The Experts Call > > Juniper - Cisco - Cloud > > > > > > On Wed, Nov 13, 2013 at 3:46 PM, Ben Dale <bd...@comlinx.com.au> wrote: > > That and I think a lot of the BRAS "migration" functionality (LNS/LAC etc) > > was late to the party after being told it wasn't going to happen for > > anything lower than the 240. > > > > On 13 Nov 2013, at 12:51 pm, Bill Blackford <bblackf...@gmail.com> wrote: > > > > > My personal feeling is the MX80 wasn't widely adopted as a lower density > > > subscriber box given the lack of redundant REs. The MX104 may find it's > > > niche as a BRAS. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > On Tue, Nov 12, 2013 at 5:25 PM, Eric Van Tol <e...@atlantech.net> wrote: > > > > > >> One thing to keep in mind about these boxes is that, like the > > >> MX5/10/40/80, the built-in 10G ports do not do hierarchical QoS (per-unit > > >> scheduling). I'm confused as to why this is, considering they are > > >> Trio-based routers, but I digress. I personally don't think that the > > >> astronomical cost to enable the 10G ports on all the low-end MX routers > > >> is > > >> worth it, considering they can't even do per-unit scheduling. > > >> > > >> -evt > > >> > > >>> -----Original Message----- > > >>> From: juniper-nsp [mailto:juniper-nsp-boun...@puck.nether.net] On > > >> Behalf Of > > >>> joel jaeggli > > >>> Sent: Tuesday, November 12, 2013 4:00 PM > > >>> To: Saku Ytti > > >>> Cc: juniper-nsp@puck.nether.net > > >>> Subject: Re: [j-nsp] Juniper MX104 > > >>> > > >>> > > >>> On Nov 12, 2013, at 12:46 PM, Saku Ytti <s...@ytti.fi> wrote: > > >>> > > >>>> On (2013-11-12 20:14 +0000), Tom Storey wrote: > > >>>> > > >>>>> Why so much just to enable some ports? How do they come up with that > > >>>>> kind of price? Pluck it out of thin air? > > >>>>> > > >>>>> The hardware has been paid for, and I know thats only list pricing, > > >>>>> but it still seems ridiculous. > > >>>> > > >>>> The question might have been rhetoric. But I'll bite. > > >>>> > > >>>> The BOM on these boxes is nothing, I'm guessing less than 1kUSD. But > > >> the > > >>>> volume you can sell them also is very very small, so the margins need > > >> to > > >>> be > > >>>> very high to be able to design and support them. > > >>>> Licensing allows you to sell to larger group of people, people who > > >>> normally > > >>>> would buy smaller/inferior box, now can afford it, which in turn > > >> allows > > >>> you > > >>>> to reduce your margins, making you more competitive. > > >>>> > > >>>> I actually like it. I wish vendors like Agilent/Ixia, Spirent would > > >> sell > > >>>> test-kit with some sort of 'per hours used' license. Lot of SPs have > > >> need > > >>> for > > >>>> proper testing kit, but only will need them very irregularly. And > > >> renting > > >>> is > > >>>> always such a chore. It's same thing there, BOM is nothing, but volume > > >> is > > >>> even > > >>>> lower, so prices are ridiculously high, consequently proper testing is > > >>> very > > >>>> rarely done by other than telco size SPs. > > >>> > > >>> It's one of those things where you work with account team. if the > > >> commercial > > >>> terms don't work out for most potential buyers, then the product won't > > >>> be > > >>> successful and either things will change or they won't. > > >>> > > >>>> -- > > >>>> ++ytti > > >>>> _______________________________________________ > > >>>> juniper-nsp mailing list juniper-nsp@puck.nether.net > > >>>> https://puck.nether.net/mailman/listinfo/juniper-nsp > > >>>> > > >> > > >> > > >> _______________________________________________ > > >> juniper-nsp mailing list juniper-nsp@puck.nether.net > > >> https://puck.nether.net/mailman/listinfo/juniper-nsp > > >> > > > > > > > > > > > > -- > > > Bill Blackford > > > > > > Logged into reality and abusing my sudo privileges..... > > > _______________________________________________ > > > juniper-nsp mailing list juniper-nsp@puck.nether.net > > > https://puck.nether.net/mailman/listinfo/juniper-nsp > > > > > > > > > _______________________________________________ > > juniper-nsp mailing list juniper-nsp@puck.nether.net > > https://puck.nether.net/mailman/listinfo/juniper-nsp > > > > _______________________________________________ > juniper-nsp mailing list juniper-nsp@puck.nether.net > https://puck.nether.net/mailman/listinfo/juniper-nsp > _______________________________________________ juniper-nsp mailing list juniper-nsp@puck.nether.net https://puck.nether.net/mailman/listinfo/juniper-nsp
