Re: [c-nsp] Internet border router recommendations and experiences

[Thomas Scott via cisco-nsp]

Yes - 400 Gbps throughput total If I recall correctly.

> The MX204 has four rate-selectable ports that can be configured as
100-Gigabit Ethernet ports or 40-Gigabit Ethernet ports, or each port can
be configured as four 10-Gigabit Ethernet ports (by using a breakout
cable). The MX204 also has eight 10-Gigabit Ethernet ports. The four
rate-selectable ports support QSFP28 and QSFP+ transceivers, whereas the
eight 10-Gigabit Ethernet ports support SFP+ transceivers

https://www.juniper.net/documentation/us/en/hardware/mx204/topics/concept/mx204-description.html

Best Regards,
-Thomas Scott


On Wed, Feb 22, 2023 at 5:19 PM Eric Louie via cisco-nsp <
cisco-nsp@puck.nether.net> wrote:

> Oh geez, I just realized I left a zero off the interface - we need 100G
> interfaces both upstream (x1) and downstream (x2)
> That probably changes the product choices a little bit.
> Anyone with 100G Internet feeds want to let me know what you're using for
> a border router?  I saw one reply for Arista already.
> Does the MX204 have 100GE interfaces and throughput?
> -e-
>
> Eric Louie
> 619-743-5375 Cell/text
> Stay in this moment, it's the only one you really have
> Take the time to be compassionate today
>
>
> On Wednesday, February 22, 2023 at 12:43:52 PM PST, Mark Tinka
>  wrote:
>
>
>
>  On 2/22/23 20:29, Eric Louie wrote:
>
>
>Mark, thanks.  We were quoted a MX304 for the Internet edge from
> Juniper.  How has your experience been with it?  are you 10G upstream and
> downstream?  Any IPS on the 10G connection?
>
>  The MX304 is not worth the money, for as long as the MX204 exists.
>
>
>
>
>   We tried an NCS-5501 and it was a disaster, in a word.  The 10G
> interface, uRPF, source-based blackholing, and routing table depth with
> Cisco is a limiting factor in their product line.
>
>  Broadcom-based systems should always be looked at with one eye open,
> i.e., test test test before you commit. This applies to any vendor, not
> just Cisco.
>
>  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/
>
___
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] ASR920 as an iperf host?

[Thomas Scott]

I've seen ASR920s do a Y.1564 test over L2, but never an L3 iPerf test. Are
you attempting to prove (or disprove) a circuit?

Some digging shows this document Y.1564 Capabilities of ASR920 (cisco.com)
<https://www.cisco.com/c/dam/en/us/products/collateral/routers/asr-920-series-aggregation-services-router/y1564-capabilities-asr920.pdf>


- Thomas Scott | mr.thomas.sc...@gmail.com


On Fri, Jan 15, 2021 at 10:04 AM Shawn L  wrote:

> Does anyone know if there's a way to do basic speed testing to / from an
> ASR920?  I know you used to be able to use ttcp on some cisco routers to do
> basic testing, but it doesn't seem to be available on the 920.
>
> Or, if there's a way to do any sort of link speed testing between 2
> ASR920s?
>
> I have a circuit that may or may not be performing correctly, but I'd like
> to do some basic testing before I have to send a technician with an
> ethernet tester to do rfc2544 (or Y.1564) tests.
>
> 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/
>
___
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/