Re: [c-nsp] CISCO-AVAGO CISCO-FINISAR etc SFPs

[Lukas Tribus]

Hello,


2017-10-31 15:49 GMT+01:00 Nick Cutting :
> Well, a bunch of vendors now sell optics that do not require the secret 
> command on IOS to ignore the non cisco coding.
>
>   I guess buy a few – the 10g SR’s are about $16 -
>
> However, we got burned in 2015 when a client with non cisco parts using the 
> “service unsupported-transceiver” would NOT be supported by TAC.
>
> If you can get a third party optic to work without the command – are they 
> supported by TAC?  It is a grey area for sure.


My experience about this is that if the problem is related to
interface or SFP related problems, then you have to have original
Cisco SFPs (not "correctly programmed" third party SFP's, but really
Cisco SFPs).
On the other hand if you are troubleshooting some other problem that
is clearly unrelated to the SFP - and the TAC engineer understands
that - then they don't care at all.

But this comes down to a decision that the individual TAC engineer
takes. And later on, when the issue is escalated to the BU, it is
again a decision that the BU will take.

As far as I understand there are no hard policies about this, its a
gray area which is why the individuals you are working with are gonna
take those decisions.


The ASR9k BU for example tries to not break third party optics,
however it cannot guarantee support:
https://supportforums.cisco.com/t5/service-providers-blogs/asr9000-policy-3rd-party-optics/ba-p/3106940

A different document from 15 years ago suggest that Cisco will provide
support unless the root cause can be attributed to your third party
part (even memory):
https://www.cisco.com/c/en/us/products/prod_warranty09186a00800b5594.html


However, like I said, it all comes down to the individual handling
your SR. Both at TAC and the BU.


So what do you do? You buy at least a handful of those ridiculously
priced Cisco OEM SFPs, so you can just swap 'em if TAC insist.



cheers,
lukas
___
cisco-nsp mailing list  cisco-nsp@puck.nether.net
https://puck.nether.net/mailman/listinfo/cisco-nsp
archive at http://puck.nether.net/pipermail/cisco-nsp/

Re: [c-nsp] CISCO-AVAGO CISCO-FINISAR etc SFPs

[Nick Cutting]

Well, a bunch of vendors now sell optics that do not require the secret command 
on IOS to ignore the non cisco coding.

  I guess buy a few – the 10g SR’s are about $16 -

However, we got burned in 2015 when a client with non cisco parts using the 
“service unsupported-transceiver” would NOT be supported by TAC.

If you can get a third party optic to work without the command – are they 
supported by TAC?  It is a grey area for sure.


From: CiscoNSP List [mailto:cisconsp_l...@hotmail.com]
Sent: Tuesday, October 31, 2017 9:24 AM
To: Nick Cutting ; Doug McIntyre 
Cc: cisco-nsp@puck.nether.net
Subject: Re: [c-nsp] CISCO-AVAGO CISCO-FINISAR etc SFPs

This message originated from outside your organization.


Thanks Nick - So they sell competing Optics? i.e They have a "cisco-avago" 
SFP-10G-AOC and "cisco" SFP-10G-AOC?-  The cisco-avago being cheap, and 
cisco being 000's? (They couldnt(wouldnt) be doing this?) - lol, No one in 
there right mind would purchase the "cisco" optics ever again?



Cheers


From: Nick Cutting >
Sent: Wednesday, 1 November 2017 12:12 AM
To: CiscoNSP List; Doug McIntyre
Cc: cisco-nsp@puck.nether.net
Subject: RE: [c-nsp] CISCO-AVAGO CISCO-FINISAR etc SFPs

No, they still rip you off big time.
Just got quoted on a 10g SFP+ singlemode SFP for roughly 70 times more 
expensive than the equivalent component in fiberstore.
I gave the client the option for both -

$40

$2,847.76

And they went with the genuine cisco part, because of our scary disclaimer 
about TAC.

Imagine they needed 10 of these - that’s $400 vs 28,.

Do you chaps just keep a couple of "genuine parts" lying around to quickly 
shove in if you need TAC assistance for a bug?

No one in their right mind can be buying a lot of "genuine" optics in 2017?

-Original Message-
From: cisco-nsp [mailto:cisco-nsp-boun...@puck.nether.net] On Behalf Of 
CiscoNSP List
Sent: Tuesday, October 31, 2017 8:52 AM
To: Doug McIntyre >
Cc: cisco-nsp@puck.nether.net
Subject: Re: [c-nsp] CISCO-AVAGO CISCO-FINISAR etc SFPs

This Message originated outside your organization.

Thanks - Yes I realize Cisco dont manufacture their own optics (They use 
finisar etc), but all "genuine" Cisco optics Ive seen previously have never had 
the manufacturers name in bold writing on the optic? (Havent purchased genuine 
Cisco optics for a long time - Probably the reason why )


They still sell "cisco" only branded optics for 10 times the price of others?  
Or do they now sell (only) these cheaper co-branded ones to compete?

Thanks


From: Doug McIntyre >
Sent: Tuesday, 31 October 2017 11:38 PM
To: CiscoNSP List
Cc: cisco-nsp@puck.nether.net
Subject: Re: [c-nsp] CISCO-AVAGO CISCO-FINISAR etc SFPs

On Tue, Oct 31, 2017 at 11:05:10AM +, CiscoNSP List wrote:
> Are the cisco-avago, cisco-finisar "genuine" Cisco optics? i.e TAC
> will provide support if you are using them? Ours were purchased
> through a Cisco disty (As a Cisco part)We are hitting multiple
> issues with them (10G Optic will not initialize in ASR920, 100G give
> no light/power readings in NCS5500)

Cisco OEMs optics from everybody under the sun. If you can show that you bought 
them as Cisco parts, then TAC should be fine dealing with them.
They do use Avago/Finisar parts frequently, and they are labelled as you see 
them.

All hardware is finicky dealing with optics at some point in time. They may 
need to send you another "brand" to deal with your hardware, or they are bad.
TAC should be fine talking to you about it.


___
cisco-nsp mailing list  
cisco-nsp@puck.nether.net 
https://puck.nether.net/mailman/listinfo/cisco-nsp
archive at 
http://puck.nether.net/pipermail/cisco-nsp/
___
cisco-nsp mailing list  cisco-nsp@puck.nether.net
https://puck.nether.net/mailman/listinfo/cisco-nsp
archive at http://puck.nether.net/pipermail/cisco-nsp/

Re: [c-nsp] Juniper MX240 & MX480

[Mark Tinka]

On 31/Oct/17 15:33, adamv0...@netconsultings.com wrote:

> Interesting, seems like two mpc7 cards connected back to back, wondering how
> they managed to connect 4 trio chips in a non-blocking fashion with no
> crossbar.
> Does anyone have any material on the platform internals please?

There is a crossbar.

Each MPC supports 1.2Tbps (delivered via 3x 3rd-Gen Trio chipsets in
each MPC) that handle the MIC's and interconnect to the crossbar.

Mark.
___
cisco-nsp mailing list  cisco-nsp@puck.nether.net
https://puck.nether.net/mailman/listinfo/cisco-nsp
archive at http://puck.nether.net/pipermail/cisco-nsp/

Re: [c-nsp] Juniper MX240 & MX480

[Mark Tinka]

On 31/Oct/17 15:30, adamv0...@netconsultings.com wrote:

> But I actually do mind the fact that,
>  
> 1)BGP tables (e.g. bgp.l3vpn.0)  are created only at the instance when PE 
> needs to store received MP-BGP routes in them.
> -this is very confusing when coming from vendor where all tables are always 
> used in a "full-duplex" mode. 
> -these BGP tables are only used for routes received over MP-BGP -but just not 
> sure why local VPN routes are dumped to these (seems like a waste of 
> resources and source of confusion)
>  
> 2)VRFs are not using BGP tables to advertise routes to RRs/Other-PEs or to 
> each other.
> -that's why you need to apply MP-BGP export policies only at each individual 
> VRF as vrf-export policy -or if you want to do it at a global level MP-BGP 
> session level you have to use the “vpn-apply-export” knob -which places the 
> policy configured at global level at the end of each VRF's export policy.
> -and yes you guessed it, the “advertise-from-main-vpn-tables” does not do the 
> trick -even it is supposed to move all MP-BGP sessions to their respective 
> common rib out which resets sessions -see point 3) below. 
> -and for some reason it's still not the same rib out as used by RRs -cause on 
> RRs/ASBRs you actually can use export policies directly on MP-BGP sessions.   
>  
>  

Assuming you're using this for Internet in a VRF, I wouldn't know. I've
done my best to stay away from this topology.

If you're talking about classic MPLS/VPN's (l3vpn's), we do a lot more
stuff in Global than in VRF's for it matter for us. But I do see you
concern.

> 3) BGP session is reset each time peer moves to a different update group(rib 
> out) -not minding the inefficiency where 

This has annoyed everyone for some time now.

As you know, there are inelegant workarounds, but perhaps if it bothers
you this much, perhaps start talking about an ER with your AM.


>
> 4) BGP creates multiple identical copies of rib out -just based on configured 
> peer groups. 

Same as above.


>  
> All this suggests to me that this was somehow cobbled together over the years 
> with no master plan. Yes it routes, somehow, but because it's so complex 
> troubleshooting what's going on under the hood (e.g. why it takes 5min to 
> import route from bgp.l3vpn.0 to newly added VRF.inet.0) is a nightmare.
> Does not seem like "carrier grade" to me.  

You're probably right, but we pick our battles. In the grand scheme of
things, after all is said and done, this isn't fundamentally one of them
that will determine whether we go MX or ASR.

Mark.
___
cisco-nsp mailing list  cisco-nsp@puck.nether.net
https://puck.nether.net/mailman/listinfo/cisco-nsp
archive at http://puck.nether.net/pipermail/cisco-nsp/

Re: [c-nsp] Juniper MX240 & MX480

[adamv0025]

> Mark Tinka
> Sent: Tuesday, October 31, 2017 5:57 AM
> 
> 
> 
> On 26/Oct/17 11:08, Dale Shaw wrote:
> 
> > Indeed.
> >
> > Mark, try asking on juniper-nsp instead:
> > https://puck.nether.net/mailman/listinfo/juniper-nsp
> >
> > In related news, I see that Juniper has announced the MX150 ("vTrio"
> > which I assume means vMX on x86) and MX204 -- both 1RU. It's about
> > time :-)
> 
> Don't forget about the MX10003.
> 
Interesting, seems like two mpc7 cards connected back to back, wondering how
they managed to connect 4 trio chips in a non-blocking fashion with no
crossbar.
Does anyone have any material on the platform internals please?


adam

___
cisco-nsp mailing list  cisco-nsp@puck.nether.net
https://puck.nether.net/mailman/listinfo/cisco-nsp
archive at http://puck.nether.net/pipermail/cisco-nsp/

Re: [c-nsp] Juniper MX240 & MX480

[adamv0025]

> From: Mark Tinka [mailto:mark.ti...@seacom.mu]
> Sent: Tuesday, October 31, 2017 5:59 AM
> 
> On 26/Oct/17 10:26, adamv0...@netconsultings.com wrote:
> The selection of tool depends on the job to be done, and you haven't 
> provided any info on what you intend to use the boxes for so I can 
> only generalize.
> If your network is carrying traffic of a single priority level or if 
> it just can't get congested then you'll be fine (well you'll still 
> have to bear the stupid BGP implementation in Junos) If the above is 
> not your case then save yourself a bunch of trouble and go with ASR9k 
> line instead.
> 
> We run BGP on Junos and have no complaints, fundamentally.
> 
Well glad for you,

But I actually do mind the fact that,
 
1)BGP tables (e.g. bgp.l3vpn.0)  are created only at the instance when PE needs 
to store received MP-BGP routes in them.
-this is very confusing when coming from vendor where all tables are always 
used in a "full-duplex" mode. 
-these BGP tables are only used for routes received over MP-BGP -but just not 
sure why local VPN routes are dumped to these (seems like a waste of resources 
and source of confusion)
 
2)VRFs are not using BGP tables to advertise routes to RRs/Other-PEs or to each 
other.
-that's why you need to apply MP-BGP export policies only at each individual 
VRF as vrf-export policy -or if you want to do it at a global level MP-BGP 
session level you have to use the “vpn-apply-export” knob -which places the 
policy configured at global level at the end of each VRF's export policy.
-and yes you guessed it, the “advertise-from-main-vpn-tables” does not do the 
trick -even it is supposed to move all MP-BGP sessions to their respective 
common rib out which resets sessions -see point 3) below. 
-and for some reason it's still not the same rib out as used by RRs -cause on 
RRs/ASBRs you actually can use export policies directly on MP-BGP sessions.
 
3) BGP session is reset each time peer moves to a different update group(rib 
out) -not minding the inefficiency where 

4) BGP creates multiple identical copies of rib out -just based on configured 
peer groups. 
 
All this suggests to me that this was somehow cobbled together over the years 
with no master plan. Yes it routes, somehow, but because it's so complex 
troubleshooting what's going on under the hood (e.g. why it takes 5min to 
import route from bgp.l3vpn.0 to newly added VRF.inet.0) is a nightmare.
Does not seem like "carrier grade" to me.  

adam


___
cisco-nsp mailing list  cisco-nsp@puck.nether.net
https://puck.nether.net/mailman/listinfo/cisco-nsp
archive at http://puck.nether.net/pipermail/cisco-nsp/

Re: [c-nsp] CISCO-AVAGO CISCO-FINISAR etc SFPs

[CiscoNSP List]

Thanks Nick - So they sell competing Optics? i.e They have a "cisco-avago" 
SFP-10G-AOC and "cisco" SFP-10G-AOC?-  The cisco-avago being cheap, and 
cisco being 000's? (They couldnt(wouldnt) be doing this?) - lol, No one in 
there right mind would purchase the "cisco" optics ever again?


Cheers



From: Nick Cutting 
Sent: Wednesday, 1 November 2017 12:12 AM
To: CiscoNSP List; Doug McIntyre
Cc: cisco-nsp@puck.nether.net
Subject: RE: [c-nsp] CISCO-AVAGO CISCO-FINISAR etc SFPs

No, they still rip you off big time.
Just got quoted on a 10g SFP+ singlemode SFP for roughly 70 times more 
expensive than the equivalent component in fiberstore.
I gave the client the option for both -

$40

$2,847.76

And they went with the genuine cisco part, because of our scary disclaimer 
about TAC.

Imagine they needed 10 of these - that’s $400 vs 28,.

Do you chaps just keep a couple of "genuine parts" lying around to quickly 
shove in if you need TAC assistance for a bug?

No one in their right mind can be buying a lot of "genuine" optics in 2017?

-Original Message-
From: cisco-nsp [mailto:cisco-nsp-boun...@puck.nether.net] On Behalf Of 
CiscoNSP List
Sent: Tuesday, October 31, 2017 8:52 AM
To: Doug McIntyre 
Cc: cisco-nsp@puck.nether.net
Subject: Re: [c-nsp] CISCO-AVAGO CISCO-FINISAR etc SFPs

This Message originated outside your organization.

Thanks - Yes I realize Cisco dont manufacture their own optics (They use 
finisar etc), but all "genuine" Cisco optics Ive seen previously have never had 
the manufacturers name in bold writing on the optic? (Havent purchased genuine 
Cisco optics for a long time - Probably the reason why )


They still sell "cisco" only branded optics for 10 times the price of others?  
Or do they now sell (only) these cheaper co-branded ones to compete?

Thanks


From: Doug McIntyre 
Sent: Tuesday, 31 October 2017 11:38 PM
To: CiscoNSP List
Cc: cisco-nsp@puck.nether.net
Subject: Re: [c-nsp] CISCO-AVAGO CISCO-FINISAR etc SFPs

On Tue, Oct 31, 2017 at 11:05:10AM +, CiscoNSP List wrote:
> Are the cisco-avago, cisco-finisar "genuine" Cisco optics? i.e TAC
> will provide support if you are using them? Ours were purchased
> through a Cisco disty (As a Cisco part)We are hitting multiple
> issues with them (10G Optic will not initialize in ASR920, 100G give
> no light/power readings in NCS5500)

Cisco OEMs optics from everybody under the sun. If you can show that you bought 
them as Cisco parts, then TAC should be fine dealing with them.
They do use Avago/Finisar parts frequently, and they are labelled as you see 
them.

All hardware is finicky dealing with optics at some point in time. They may 
need to send you another "brand" to deal with your hardware, or they are bad.
TAC should be fine talking to you about it.


___
cisco-nsp mailing list  cisco-nsp@puck.nether.net 
https://puck.nether.net/mailman/listinfo/cisco-nsp
archive at http://puck.nether.net/pipermail/cisco-nsp/
___
cisco-nsp mailing list  cisco-nsp@puck.nether.net
https://puck.nether.net/mailman/listinfo/cisco-nsp
archive at http://puck.nether.net/pipermail/cisco-nsp/

Re: [c-nsp] CISCO-AVAGO CISCO-FINISAR etc SFPs

[Nick Cutting]

No, they still rip you off big time.  
Just got quoted on a 10g SFP+ singlemode SFP for roughly 70 times more 
expensive than the equivalent component in fiberstore.
I gave the client the option for both - 

$40

$2,847.76

And they went with the genuine cisco part, because of our scary disclaimer 
about TAC.

Imagine they needed 10 of these - that’s $400 vs 28,. 

Do you chaps just keep a couple of "genuine parts" lying around to quickly 
shove in if you need TAC assistance for a bug?

No one in their right mind can be buying a lot of "genuine" optics in 2017?

-Original Message-
From: cisco-nsp [mailto:cisco-nsp-boun...@puck.nether.net] On Behalf Of 
CiscoNSP List
Sent: Tuesday, October 31, 2017 8:52 AM
To: Doug McIntyre 
Cc: cisco-nsp@puck.nether.net
Subject: Re: [c-nsp] CISCO-AVAGO CISCO-FINISAR etc SFPs

This Message originated outside your organization.

Thanks - Yes I realize Cisco dont manufacture their own optics (They use 
finisar etc), but all "genuine" Cisco optics Ive seen previously have never had 
the manufacturers name in bold writing on the optic? (Havent purchased genuine 
Cisco optics for a long time - Probably the reason why )


They still sell "cisco" only branded optics for 10 times the price of others?  
Or do they now sell (only) these cheaper co-branded ones to compete?

Thanks


From: Doug McIntyre 
Sent: Tuesday, 31 October 2017 11:38 PM
To: CiscoNSP List
Cc: cisco-nsp@puck.nether.net
Subject: Re: [c-nsp] CISCO-AVAGO CISCO-FINISAR etc SFPs

On Tue, Oct 31, 2017 at 11:05:10AM +, CiscoNSP List wrote:
> Are the cisco-avago, cisco-finisar "genuine" Cisco optics? i.e TAC 
> will provide support if you are using them? Ours were purchased 
> through a Cisco disty (As a Cisco part)We are hitting multiple 
> issues with them (10G Optic will not initialize in ASR920, 100G give 
> no light/power readings in NCS5500)

Cisco OEMs optics from everybody under the sun. If you can show that you bought 
them as Cisco parts, then TAC should be fine dealing with them.
They do use Avago/Finisar parts frequently, and they are labelled as you see 
them.

All hardware is finicky dealing with optics at some point in time. They may 
need to send you another "brand" to deal with your hardware, or they are bad.
TAC should be fine talking to you about it.


___
cisco-nsp mailing list  cisco-nsp@puck.nether.net 
https://puck.nether.net/mailman/listinfo/cisco-nsp
archive at http://puck.nether.net/pipermail/cisco-nsp/
___
cisco-nsp mailing list  cisco-nsp@puck.nether.net
https://puck.nether.net/mailman/listinfo/cisco-nsp
archive at http://puck.nether.net/pipermail/cisco-nsp/

Re: [c-nsp] CISCO-AVAGO CISCO-FINISAR etc SFPs

[CiscoNSP List]

Thanks - Yes I realize Cisco dont manufacture their own optics (They use 
finisar etc), but all "genuine" Cisco optics Ive seen previously have never had 
the manufacturers name in bold writing on the optic? (Havent purchased genuine 
Cisco optics for a long time - Probably the reason why )


They still sell "cisco" only branded optics for 10 times the price of others?  
Or do they now sell (only) these cheaper co-branded ones to compete?

Thanks


From: Doug McIntyre 
Sent: Tuesday, 31 October 2017 11:38 PM
To: CiscoNSP List
Cc: cisco-nsp@puck.nether.net
Subject: Re: [c-nsp] CISCO-AVAGO CISCO-FINISAR etc SFPs

On Tue, Oct 31, 2017 at 11:05:10AM +, CiscoNSP List wrote:
> Are the cisco-avago, cisco-finisar "genuine" Cisco optics? i.e TAC will 
> provide support if you are using them? Ours were purchased through a Cisco 
> disty (As a Cisco part)We are hitting multiple issues with them (10G 
> Optic will not initialize in ASR920, 100G give no light/power readings in 
> NCS5500)

Cisco OEMs optics from everybody under the sun. If you can show that
you bought them as Cisco parts, then TAC should be fine dealing with them.
They do use Avago/Finisar parts frequently, and they are labelled as you
see them.

All hardware is finicky dealing with optics at some point in time. They may
need to send you another "brand" to deal with your hardware, or they are bad.
TAC should be fine talking to you about it.


___
cisco-nsp mailing list  cisco-nsp@puck.nether.net
https://puck.nether.net/mailman/listinfo/cisco-nsp
archive at http://puck.nether.net/pipermail/cisco-nsp/

Re: [c-nsp] CISCO-AVAGO CISCO-FINISAR etc SFPs

[Doug McIntyre]

On Tue, Oct 31, 2017 at 11:05:10AM +, CiscoNSP List wrote:
> Are the cisco-avago, cisco-finisar "genuine" Cisco optics? i.e TAC will 
> provide support if you are using them? Ours were purchased through a Cisco 
> disty (As a Cisco part)We are hitting multiple issues with them (10G 
> Optic will not initialize in ASR920, 100G give no light/power readings in 
> NCS5500)

Cisco OEMs optics from everybody under the sun. If you can show that
you bought them as Cisco parts, then TAC should be fine dealing with them.
They do use Avago/Finisar parts frequently, and they are labelled as you
see them. 

All hardware is finicky dealing with optics at some point in time. They may
need to send you another "brand" to deal with your hardware, or they are bad.
TAC should be fine talking to you about it.


___
cisco-nsp mailing list  cisco-nsp@puck.nether.net
https://puck.nether.net/mailman/listinfo/cisco-nsp
archive at http://puck.nether.net/pipermail/cisco-nsp/

[c-nsp] CISCO-AVAGO CISCO-FINISAR etc SFPs

[CiscoNSP List]

Are the cisco-avago, cisco-finisar "genuine" Cisco optics? i.e TAC will provide 
support if you are using them? Ours were purchased through a Cisco disty (As a 
Cisco part)We are hitting multiple issues with them (10G Optic will not 
initialize in ASR920, 100G give no light/power readings in NCS5500)


I had never encountered them before - They came in Cisco boxes, have Cisco 
sticker on the optics, but also finisar and avago?


Thanks
___
cisco-nsp mailing list  cisco-nsp@puck.nether.net
https://puck.nether.net/mailman/listinfo/cisco-nsp
archive at http://puck.nether.net/pipermail/cisco-nsp/

Re: [c-nsp] Juniper MX240 & MX480

[Chris Welti]

Regarding CWDM/DWDM, you could always add a QFX5110-48SH as a port extender box 
to the MX204 with Junos Fusion Provider Edge and sacrifice one or two 100G 
QSFP28 ports on the MX204.
That way you'd have 2x100G and 48x 1/10G SFP+ ports with a bit of 
oversubscription in 2RU.
Does anyone know if you can use the onboard 8x SFP+ ports on the MX204 in case 
you use all four QSFP28 ports in 100G mode? (With a bit of oversubscription?)

Btw, pricing per 100G on the MX204 and MX10003 seems pretty good compared to 
the other MX boxes and ASR9K.

Regards,
Chris

On 31.10.17 11:08, sth...@nethelp.no wrote:
>> Am I only one puzzled about MX204 port choice, 4xQSFP28 + 8xSFP+.
>> Seems like it's positioned to datacenters facing upstream? I'd want
>> 2xQSFP28 and maybe 36xSFP+ (oversub is fine), with attractive
>> licensing using SFP+ as SFP only, to add L3 DFZ 1GE aggregation box to
>> JNPR portfolio.
>> I can't imagine rolling this would be expensive, call it MX202 o
>> something. JNPR do me a solid.
> 
> We discussed this with Juniper. We're hearing a lot about space available
> on the faceplate versus number of ports desired. However, the MX204 feels
> mostly irrelevant for us because splitter cables for 10G are not usable
> (since we have quite a bit CWDM/DWDM optics directly in our routers).
> 
> If faceplate space is the issue we would actually be much happier with a
> 2RU box - especially if they could reduce depth to 30 cm or thereabouts.
> 
> Steinar Haug, Nethelp consulting, sth...@nethelp.no
> ___
> cisco-nsp mailing list  cisco-nsp@puck.nether.net
> https://puck.nether.net/mailman/listinfo/cisco-nsp
> archive at http://puck.nether.net/pipermail/cisco-nsp/
> 

___
cisco-nsp mailing list  cisco-nsp@puck.nether.net
https://puck.nether.net/mailman/listinfo/cisco-nsp
archive at http://puck.nether.net/pipermail/cisco-nsp/

Re: [c-nsp] Juniper MX240 & MX480

[sthaug]

> Am I only one puzzled about MX204 port choice, 4xQSFP28 + 8xSFP+.
> Seems like it's positioned to datacenters facing upstream? I'd want
> 2xQSFP28 and maybe 36xSFP+ (oversub is fine), with attractive
> licensing using SFP+ as SFP only, to add L3 DFZ 1GE aggregation box to
> JNPR portfolio.
> I can't imagine rolling this would be expensive, call it MX202 o
> something. JNPR do me a solid.

We discussed this with Juniper. We're hearing a lot about space available
on the faceplate versus number of ports desired. However, the MX204 feels
mostly irrelevant for us because splitter cables for 10G are not usable
(since we have quite a bit CWDM/DWDM optics directly in our routers).

If faceplate space is the issue we would actually be much happier with a
2RU box - especially if they could reduce depth to 30 cm or thereabouts.

Steinar Haug, Nethelp consulting, sth...@nethelp.no
___
cisco-nsp mailing list  cisco-nsp@puck.nether.net
https://puck.nether.net/mailman/listinfo/cisco-nsp
archive at http://puck.nether.net/pipermail/cisco-nsp/

Re: [c-nsp] Juniper MX240 & MX480

[Saku Ytti]

On 31 October 2017 at 07:56, Mark Tinka  wrote:

>> In related news, I see that Juniper has announced the MX150 ("vTrio" which
>> I assume means vMX on x86) and MX204 -- both 1RU. It's about time :-)
>
> Don't forget about the MX10003.

Am I only one puzzled about MX204 port choice, 4xQSFP28 + 8xSFP+.
Seems like it's positioned to datacenters facing upstream? I'd want
2xQSFP28 and maybe 36xSFP+ (oversub is fine), with attractive
licensing using SFP+ as SFP only, to add L3 DFZ 1GE aggregation box to
JNPR portfolio.
I can't imagine rolling this would be expensive, call it MX202 o
something. JNPR do me a solid.

(resent from correct mailbox)

-- 
  ++ytti
___
cisco-nsp mailing list  cisco-nsp@puck.nether.net
https://puck.nether.net/mailman/listinfo/cisco-nsp
archive at http://puck.nether.net/pipermail/cisco-nsp/