On 6/9/23 15:57, Andrey Kostin wrote:
Hi Mark,
Not sure why it's eye-watering. The price of fully populated MX304 is
basically the same as it's predecessor MX10003 but it provides 3.2T BW
capacity vs 2.4T.
That's true, but the premium being paid for 400Gbps capability that some
houses may not yet need is probably what is pushing that price up in
comparison to the MX10003, which does not support 400Gbps.
But to be fair, it will come down to the discounts you can negotiate
with Juniper. I'm perhaps more concerned because we got good pricing on
the MX10003, even when we did a like-for-somewhat-like comparison with
the MX304.
As much as we have struggled with Cisco in the past, this is forcing me
to see what is available in their ASR99xx boxes. But off-the-bat, form
factor and port density is poor on the Cisco side, compared to the MX304
and MX10003.
If you compare with MX204, then MX304 is about 20% expensive for the
same total BW, but MX204 doesn't have redundant RE and if you use it
in redundant chassis configuration you will have to spend some BW on
"fabric" links, effectively leveling the price if calculated for the
same BW. I'm just comparing numbers, not considering any real
topology, which is another can of worms. Most probably it's not worth
to try to scale MX204s to more than a pair of devices, at least I
wouldn't do it and consider it ;)
The use-case for MX204 and MX304 is very very different. As you say,
MX304 is a better alternative for the MX10003 (which I am getting
conflicting information about re: sale availability from Juniper).
We use the MX204 extensively, but only for peering and routing for
value-added services too small to plug into a larger MX.
I'd rather call eye-watering prices for MPC7 and MPC10 to upgrade
existing MX480 routers if you still to use their low-speed ports. Two
MPC10s with SCB3s upgrade cost more than MX304, but gives 30% less BW
capacity. For MPC7 this ratio is even worse.
Agreed - the MPC7 and MPC10's only make sense for large capacity
aggregation or backbone links, not as an access port for 100Gbps
customers. The MX10003 and MX304 are better boxes for 100Gbps access for
customers.
Conversely, trying to use the MX304 or MX10003 as a core box is too
costly, since you are paying the premium for edge features in Trio, when
all you need is basic Ethernet, IS-IS and MPLS.
So the MPC7/MPC10 vs. MX304/10003 use-cases are clearly defined, if
money is an object.
This brings a question, does anybody have an experience with HQoS on
MX304? I mean just per-subinterface queueing on an interface to a
switch, not BNG subscribers CoS which is probably another big topic.
At least I'm not dare yet to try MX304 in BNG role, maybe later ;)
In this world where the kind of traffic you will be pushing through an
MX304 most likely being majority off-net content, do you really need
H-QoS :-)?
Mark.
_______________________________________________
juniper-nsp mailing list juniper-nsp@puck.nether.net
https://puck.nether.net/mailman/listinfo/juniper-nsp
