Re: [j-nsp] [c-nsp] LACP between router VMs (James Bensley)

[Chris Burton]

For better or worse I do remember those days, though I was referring to 
recent hardware switches/bridges (should have clarified that).  To my 
knowledge that only applies to things like the STP protocols, but I 
could be wrong, again would need to read through the specifications 
again to be sure as that is not a use case I have needed thus far.


Scaling the vMX for testing/lab/PoC deployments can be challenging, but 
I have been able to get large topologies off of a single older model 
dual Xeon E5-2670 server using logical systems, total of seven vMX 
instances and 84 routers using the aforementioned logical systems, at 
that point I run into thermal limits because of the VFP CPU usage (even 
in lite-mode, which only appears to be related to the number of 
interfaces rather than the packet processing, which seems to be the same 
in lite and performance modes hence the CPU usage).  Some months back I 
tried to see how large of a topology I could build with five servers I 
had access to, I was able to get to seven vMX instances per server with 
12 logical systems per vMX instance which gave me a 420 router topology 
using the trial license, so you can scale a lab/PoC setup quite nicely.  
Only downside to using logical systems is they do not support everything 
that a non-LS would support, the biggest missing feature in my case 
being EVPN.


Another item I have been testing is the vQFX which has much less CPU 
demand since the interfaces are bound to the VCP instead of the VFP, but 
I have run into many other issues with that and have not tested it as 
thoroughly, it is also just a alpha/beta release from Juniper at the moment.


-C


On 12/02/2017 03:40 AM, adamv0...@netconsultings.com wrote:

Hey,


local link and not forwarded by the soft bridge by default (I do not know of
any hardware bridges that allow you to disabled this restriction, if you know
of any I would be interested.


My understanding is that Carrier-Ethernet grade switches/routers should allow 
you to peer/drop/tunnel/forward L2 protocols.
If you're in be business long enough you may remember migrations from 
leased-lines to frame-relay and then from FR to MPLS and then from L3VPNs to 
L2VPNs to complete the circle.
These L2 services especially the point-to-point ones, that's where customers 
pretty much expect the same properties as they used to have in leased-lines or 
FR services, basically just a pipe where MTU is not an issue and can transport 
anything from L2 up so they can run their own MPLS/DC networks over these pipes.
 

Out of curiosity what is your use case that you need to use LACP to
communicate with VMs?


Large scale ISP network simulations (for proof of concept testing of various 
designs/migrations/etc).
This allows me to verify my designs, how the technology works on selected code 
versions -if there are any bugs, interworking between vendors.
And there are the provisioning and network monitoring systems, new SDN 
approaches that can be tested in this virtual environment, you name it.
Since it's all virtual one can simulate complete networks rather than scaled 
down slices used in physical labs, so I can see the effects of topology-based 
route-reflection in terms of routes distribution, the effects of node or link 
failures on traffic-engineering and possible congestion as a result across the 
whole backbone all in 1:1 scale, but the important point is to make the 
simulated control-plane as close to reality as possible hence the need for LACP.
  
Speaking of scale, the fact that the VFP is always at 100% CPU is not helping -reminds me of the good old Dynamips -but at least there you could fix it with an idle value.

Having hundreds of these VNFs running is not very green.
  


adam





___
juniper-nsp mailing list juniper-nsp@puck.nether.net
https://puck.nether.net/mailman/listinfo/juniper-nsp

Re: [j-nsp] MX80 v MX104

[Raphael Maunier]

You can split the 100G port in order to to 4*10G ( with a 40G qfsp )

So you can do a 24*10G router if you don’t need the 100G (

Raphael
PS : New remote is ordered ( I used the Juniper Repair kit to fix the previous 
one ^^


On 02/12/2017 17:02, "juniper-nsp on behalf of Raphael Mazelier" 
 wrote:

On 02/12/2017 16:26, Raphael Maunier wrote:
> There is no licence for the ports, I already made my first quote for a 
customer last week on this product
> Rebate are also lower not the same than the MX chassis.
> 
> It’s not the same product, only 10G/100G, no interfaces cards, no 
services cards …
> 
> This is the best MX product for years, I’m glad to see Juniper listening 
to their partner and finally decided to build this version (
> 

Hi Raphael,

This is indeed an interesting product and I'm thinking it could be a 
good candidate for replacing my old edge devices on my CDN 
infrastructure. A real router, a good density and the Junos toolbox on 
1U. Sound good on the paper.

What are the port details ? 8x10G ports and 4x100/40/10G which can be 
spitted ?


Best,

PS : can you give me some price detail in pv ?
PS2 : How about your remote ? :)

--
Raphael Mazelier

___
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

Re: [j-nsp] MX80 v MX104

[Raphael Mazelier]

On 02/12/2017 16:26, Raphael Maunier wrote:

There is no licence for the ports, I already made my first quote for a customer 
last week on this product
Rebate are also lower not the same than the MX chassis.

It’s not the same product, only 10G/100G, no interfaces cards, no services 
cards …

This is the best MX product for years, I’m glad to see Juniper listening to 
their partner and finally decided to build this version (



Hi Raphael,

This is indeed an interesting product and I'm thinking it could be a 
good candidate for replacing my old edge devices on my CDN 
infrastructure. A real router, a good density and the Junos toolbox on 
1U. Sound good on the paper.


What are the port details ? 8x10G ports and 4x100/40/10G which can be 
spitted ?



Best,

PS : can you give me some price detail in pv ?
PS2 : How about your remote ? :)

--
Raphael Mazelier

___
juniper-nsp mailing list juniper-nsp@puck.nether.net
https://puck.nether.net/mailman/listinfo/juniper-nsp

Re: [j-nsp] MX80 v MX104

[Raphael Maunier]

I don’t have the info yet. But that was not the need for the first project for 
the MX204

I asked for the detailed datasheet (not available today). 

On 02/12/2017 16:35, "Duane Grant"  wrote:

Hi Raphael,

Do you know which versions support hqos and how many queues? 

Thanks!

/Duane


> On Dec 2, 2017, at 10:26 AM, Raphael Maunier  wrote:
> 
> There is no licence for the ports, I already made my first quote for a 
customer last week on this product
> Rebate are also lower not the same than the MX chassis.
> 
> It’s not the same product, only 10G/100G, no interfaces cards, no 
services cards …
> 
> This is the best MX product for years, I’m glad to see Juniper listening 
to their partner and finally decided to build this version (
> 
> On 02/12/2017 16:15, "Vincent Bernat"  wrote:
> 
> ❦  2 décembre 2017 14:58 GMT, Raphael Maunier  :
> 
>> Price-List:
>> MX204   40350 $ 2M fib / 6M rib & 32 vrf
>> MX204-IR 48350 $ No fib/rib limit (datasheet 
performances) but 32 vrf
>> MX204-R   64350 $ No limit
> 
>No additional licenses needed to enable ports? Those prices are
>significantly lower than the prices for the MX104.
>-- 
>"You have been in Afghanistan, I perceive."
>-- Sir Arthur Conan Doyle, "A Study in Scarlet"
> 
> 
> ___
> 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

Re: [j-nsp] MX80 v MX104

[Giuliano C. Medalha]

I agree

The best product in years !!!

Amazing and powerfull



Giuliano C. Medalha
WZTECH NETWORKS
+55 (17) 98112-5394
giuli...@wztech.com.br

From: juniper-nsp  on behalf of Raphael 
Maunier 
Sent: Saturday, December 2, 2017 1:26:50 PM
To: Vincent Bernat
Cc: juniper-nsp@puck.nether.net
Subject: Re: [j-nsp] MX80 v MX104

There is no licence for the ports, I already made my first quote for a customer 
last week on this product
Rebate are also lower not the same than the MX chassis.

It’s not the same product, only 10G/100G, no interfaces cards, no services 
cards …

This is the best MX product for years, I’m glad to see Juniper listening to 
their partner and finally decided to build this version (

On 02/12/2017 16:15, "Vincent Bernat"  wrote:

 ❦  2 décembre 2017 14:58 GMT, Raphael Maunier  :

> Price-List:
> MX204   40350 $ 2M fib / 6M rib & 32 vrf
> MX204-IR 48350 $ No fib/rib limit (datasheet 
performances) but 32 vrf
> MX204-R   64350 $ No limit

No additional licenses needed to enable ports? Those prices are
significantly lower than the prices for the MX104.
--
"You have been in Afghanistan, I perceive."
-- Sir Arthur Conan Doyle, "A Study in Scarlet"


___
juniper-nsp mailing list juniper-nsp@puck.nether.net
https://puck.nether.net/mailman/listinfo/juniper-nsp

WZTECH is registered trademark of WZTECH NETWORKS.
Copyright © 2017 WZTECH NETWORKS. All Rights Reserved.

IMPORTANTE:
As informações deste e-mail e o conteúdo dos eventuais documentos anexos são 
confidenciais e para conhecimento exclusivo do destinatário. Se o leitor desta 
mensagem não for o seu destinatário, fica desde já notificado de que não poderá 
divulgar, distribuir ou, sob qualquer forma, dar conhecimento a terceiros das 
informações e do conteúdo dos documentos anexos. Neste caso, favor comunicar 
imediatamente o remetente, respondendo este e-mail ou telefonando ao mesmo, e 
em seguida apague-o.

CONFIDENTIALITY NOTICE:
The information transmitted in this email message and any attachments are 
solely for the intended recipient and may contain confidential or privileged 
information. If you are not the intended recipient, any review, transmission, 
dissemination or other use of this information is prohibited. If you have 
received this communication in error, please notify the sender immediately and 
delete the material from any computer, including any copies.

WZTECH is registered trademark of WZTECH NETWORKS.
Copyright © 2017 WZTECH NETWORKS. All Rights Reserved.

IMPORTANTE:
As informações deste e-mail e o conteúdo dos eventuais documentos anexos são 
confidenciais e para conhecimento exclusivo do destinatário. Se o leitor desta 
mensagem não for o seu destinatário, fica desde já notificado de que não poderá 
divulgar, distribuir ou, sob qualquer forma, dar conhecimento a terceiros das 
informações e do conteúdo dos documentos anexos. Neste caso, favor comunicar 
imediatamente o remetente, respondendo este e-mail ou telefonando ao mesmo, e 
em seguida apague-o.

CONFIDENTIALITY NOTICE:
The information transmitted in this email message and any attachments are 
solely for the intended recipient and may contain confidential or privileged 
information. If you are not the intended recipient, any review, transmission, 
dissemination or other use of this information is prohibited. If you have 
received this communication in error, please notify the sender immediately and 
delete the material from any computer, including any copies.
___
juniper-nsp mailing list juniper-nsp@puck.nether.net
https://puck.nether.net/mailman/listinfo/juniper-nsp

Re: [j-nsp] MX80 v MX104

[Raphael Maunier]

You are right must add 10k$ forgot to mention it
And of course SVC for support


From: "Giuliano C. Medalha" 
Date: Saturday 2 December 2017 at 16:42
To: Raphael Maunier , Vincent Bernat 
Cc: "juniper-nsp@puck.nether.net" 
Subject: Re: [j-nsp] MX80 v MX104

You must buy junos license for mx204 because its not included as BB

Our SE has confirmed it.

And maybe a service contract too ( checking it )

Giuliano C. Medalha
WZTECH NETWORKS
+55 (17) 98112-5394
giuli...@wztech.com.br

From: juniper-nsp  on behalf of Raphael 
Maunier 
Sent: Saturday, December 2, 2017 1:26:50 PM
To: Vincent Bernat
Cc: juniper-nsp@puck.nether.net
Subject: Re: [j-nsp] MX80 v MX104

There is no licence for the ports, I already made my first quote for a customer 
last week on this product
Rebate are also lower not the same than the MX chassis.

It’s not the same product, only 10G/100G, no interfaces cards, no services 
cards …

This is the best MX product for years, I’m glad to see Juniper listening to 
their partner and finally decided to build this version (

On 02/12/2017 16:15, "Vincent Bernat"  wrote:

 ❦  2 décembre 2017 14:58 GMT, Raphael Maunier  :

> Price-List:
> MX204   40350 $ 2M fib / 6M rib & 32 vrf
> MX204-IR 48350 $ No fib/rib limit (datasheet 
performances) but 32 vrf
> MX204-R   64350 $ No limit

No additional licenses needed to enable ports? Those prices are
significantly lower than the prices for the MX104.
--
"You have been in Afghanistan, I perceive."
-- Sir Arthur Conan Doyle, "A Study in Scarlet"


___
juniper-nsp mailing list juniper-nsp@puck.nether.net
https://puck.nether.net/mailman/listinfo/juniper-nsp

WZTECH is registered trademark of WZTECH NETWORKS.
Copyright © 2017 WZTECH NETWORKS. All Rights Reserved.

IMPORTANTE:
As informações deste e-mail e o conteúdo dos eventuais documentos anexos são 
confidenciais e para conhecimento exclusivo do destinatário. Se o leitor desta 
mensagem não for o seu destinatário, fica desde já notificado de que não poderá 
divulgar, distribuir ou, sob qualquer forma, dar conhecimento a terceiros das 
informações e do conteúdo dos documentos anexos. Neste caso, favor comunicar 
imediatamente o remetente, respondendo este e-mail ou telefonando ao mesmo, e 
em seguida apague-o.

CONFIDENTIALITY NOTICE:
The information transmitted in this email message and any attachments are 
solely for the intended recipient and may contain confidential or privileged 
information. If you are not the intended recipient, any review, transmission, 
dissemination or other use of this information is prohibited. If you have 
received this communication in error, please notify the sender immediately and 
delete the material from any computer, including any copies.

WZTECH is registered trademark of WZTECH NETWORKS.
Copyright © 2017 WZTECH NETWORKS. All Rights Reserved.

IMPORTANTE:
As informações deste e-mail e o conteúdo dos eventuais documentos anexos são 
confidenciais e para conhecimento exclusivo do destinatário. Se o leitor desta 
mensagem não for o seu destinatário, fica desde já notificado de que não poderá 
divulgar, distribuir ou, sob qualquer forma, dar conhecimento a terceiros das 
informações e do conteúdo dos documentos anexos. Neste caso, favor comunicar 
imediatamente o remetente, respondendo este e-mail ou telefonando ao mesmo, e 
em seguida apague-o.

CONFIDENTIALITY NOTICE:
The information transmitted in this email message and any attachments are 
solely for the intended recipient and may contain confidential or privileged 
information. If you are not the intended recipient, any review, transmission, 
dissemination or other use of this information is prohibited. If you have 
received this communication in error, please notify the sender immediately and 
delete the material from any computer, including any copies.
___
juniper-nsp mailing list juniper-nsp@puck.nether.net
https://puck.nether.net/mailman/listinfo/juniper-nsp

Re: [j-nsp] MX80 v MX104

[Giuliano C. Medalha]

You must buy junos license for mx204 because its not included as BB

Our SE has confirmed it.

And maybe a service contract too ( checking it )

Giuliano C. Medalha
WZTECH NETWORKS
+55 (17) 98112-5394
giuli...@wztech.com.br

From: juniper-nsp  on behalf of Raphael 
Maunier 
Sent: Saturday, December 2, 2017 1:26:50 PM
To: Vincent Bernat
Cc: juniper-nsp@puck.nether.net
Subject: Re: [j-nsp] MX80 v MX104

There is no licence for the ports, I already made my first quote for a customer 
last week on this product
Rebate are also lower not the same than the MX chassis.

It’s not the same product, only 10G/100G, no interfaces cards, no services 
cards …

This is the best MX product for years, I’m glad to see Juniper listening to 
their partner and finally decided to build this version (

On 02/12/2017 16:15, "Vincent Bernat"  wrote:

 ❦  2 décembre 2017 14:58 GMT, Raphael Maunier  :

> Price-List:
> MX204   40350 $ 2M fib / 6M rib & 32 vrf
> MX204-IR 48350 $ No fib/rib limit (datasheet 
performances) but 32 vrf
> MX204-R   64350 $ No limit

No additional licenses needed to enable ports? Those prices are
significantly lower than the prices for the MX104.
--
"You have been in Afghanistan, I perceive."
-- Sir Arthur Conan Doyle, "A Study in Scarlet"


___
juniper-nsp mailing list juniper-nsp@puck.nether.net
https://puck.nether.net/mailman/listinfo/juniper-nsp

WZTECH is registered trademark of WZTECH NETWORKS.
Copyright © 2017 WZTECH NETWORKS. All Rights Reserved.

IMPORTANTE:
As informações deste e-mail e o conteúdo dos eventuais documentos anexos são 
confidenciais e para conhecimento exclusivo do destinatário. Se o leitor desta 
mensagem não for o seu destinatário, fica desde já notificado de que não poderá 
divulgar, distribuir ou, sob qualquer forma, dar conhecimento a terceiros das 
informações e do conteúdo dos documentos anexos. Neste caso, favor comunicar 
imediatamente o remetente, respondendo este e-mail ou telefonando ao mesmo, e 
em seguida apague-o.

CONFIDENTIALITY NOTICE:
The information transmitted in this email message and any attachments are 
solely for the intended recipient and may contain confidential or privileged 
information. If you are not the intended recipient, any review, transmission, 
dissemination or other use of this information is prohibited. If you have 
received this communication in error, please notify the sender immediately and 
delete the material from any computer, including any copies.

WZTECH is registered trademark of WZTECH NETWORKS.
Copyright © 2017 WZTECH NETWORKS. All Rights Reserved.

IMPORTANTE:
As informações deste e-mail e o conteúdo dos eventuais documentos anexos são 
confidenciais e para conhecimento exclusivo do destinatário. Se o leitor desta 
mensagem não for o seu destinatário, fica desde já notificado de que não poderá 
divulgar, distribuir ou, sob qualquer forma, dar conhecimento a terceiros das 
informações e do conteúdo dos documentos anexos. Neste caso, favor comunicar 
imediatamente o remetente, respondendo este e-mail ou telefonando ao mesmo, e 
em seguida apague-o.

CONFIDENTIALITY NOTICE:
The information transmitted in this email message and any attachments are 
solely for the intended recipient and may contain confidential or privileged 
information. If you are not the intended recipient, any review, transmission, 
dissemination or other use of this information is prohibited. If you have 
received this communication in error, please notify the sender immediately and 
delete the material from any computer, including any copies.
___
juniper-nsp mailing list juniper-nsp@puck.nether.net
https://puck.nether.net/mailman/listinfo/juniper-nsp

Re: [j-nsp] MX80 v MX104

[Duane Grant]

Hi Raphael,

Do you know which versions support hqos and how many queues? 

Thanks!

/Duane


> On Dec 2, 2017, at 10:26 AM, Raphael Maunier  wrote:
> 
> There is no licence for the ports, I already made my first quote for a 
> customer last week on this product
> Rebate are also lower not the same than the MX chassis.
> 
> It’s not the same product, only 10G/100G, no interfaces cards, no services 
> cards …
> 
> This is the best MX product for years, I’m glad to see Juniper listening to 
> their partner and finally decided to build this version (
> 
> On 02/12/2017 16:15, "Vincent Bernat"  wrote:
> 
> ❦  2 décembre 2017 14:58 GMT, Raphael Maunier  :
> 
>> Price-List:
>> MX204   40350 $ 2M fib / 6M rib & 32 vrf
>> MX204-IR 48350 $ No fib/rib limit (datasheet 
>> performances) but 32 vrf
>> MX204-R   64350 $ No limit
> 
>No additional licenses needed to enable ports? Those prices are
>significantly lower than the prices for the MX104.
>-- 
>"You have been in Afghanistan, I perceive."
>-- Sir Arthur Conan Doyle, "A Study in Scarlet"
> 
> 
> ___
> 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

Re: [j-nsp] MX80 v MX104

[Raphael Maunier]

There is no licence for the ports, I already made my first quote for a customer 
last week on this product
Rebate are also lower not the same than the MX chassis.

It’s not the same product, only 10G/100G, no interfaces cards, no services 
cards …

This is the best MX product for years, I’m glad to see Juniper listening to 
their partner and finally decided to build this version (

On 02/12/2017 16:15, "Vincent Bernat"  wrote:

 ❦  2 décembre 2017 14:58 GMT, Raphael Maunier  :

> Price-List:
> MX204   40350 $ 2M fib / 6M rib & 32 vrf
> MX204-IR 48350 $ No fib/rib limit (datasheet 
performances) but 32 vrf
> MX204-R   64350 $ No limit

No additional licenses needed to enable ports? Those prices are
significantly lower than the prices for the MX104.
-- 
"You have been in Afghanistan, I perceive."
-- Sir Arthur Conan Doyle, "A Study in Scarlet"


___
juniper-nsp mailing list juniper-nsp@puck.nether.net
https://puck.nether.net/mailman/listinfo/juniper-nsp

Re: [j-nsp] MX80 v MX104

[Vincent Bernat]

 ❦  2 décembre 2017 14:58 GMT, Raphael Maunier  :

> Price-List:
> MX204   40350 $ 2M fib / 6M rib & 32 vrf
> MX204-IR 48350 $ No fib/rib limit (datasheet 
> performances) but 32 vrf
> MX204-R   64350 $ No limit

No additional licenses needed to enable ports? Those prices are
significantly lower than the prices for the MX104.
-- 
"You have been in Afghanistan, I perceive."
-- Sir Arthur Conan Doyle, "A Study in Scarlet"
___
juniper-nsp mailing list juniper-nsp@puck.nether.net
https://puck.nether.net/mailman/listinfo/juniper-nsp

Re: [j-nsp] MX80 v MX104

[Raphael Maunier]

Price-List:
MX204   40350 $ 2M fib / 6M rib & 32 vrf
MX204-IR 48350 $ No fib/rib limit (datasheet 
performances) but 32 vrf
MX204-R   64350 $ No limit


From: Colton Conor 
Date: Saturday 2 December 2017 at 15:44
To: Raphael Maunier 
Cc: "juniper-nsp@puck.nether.net" 
Subject: Re: [j-nsp] MX80 v MX104

I was about to say check out the MX204 or MX150 if it meets the need. These are 
newer boxes.

Anyone have an idea what the list price is for both of these boxes? Do they 
have locked features, or special upgrades like the MX5-80 had?

On Fri, Dec 1, 2017 at 12:54 PM, Raphael Maunier 
> wrote:
Go for MX204 : 
https://www.juniper.net/us/en/products-services/routing/mx-series/mx204/

RFS 02/2018

Raphael

On 01/12/2017 19:42, "juniper-nsp on behalf of Jerry Jones" 

 on behalf of jjo...@danrj.com> wrote:

Go with MX104

Form factor much better. nothing on the back, have option for second RE if 
desired, RE is slightly better, 2 more MIC slots, cost is generally less on 104 
than 80, if using ay 10G then it for sure should be, and if I remember correct 
104 is quieter, but have not played on 80 for some timen ow as ony use 104s for 
last couple years


On Dec 1, 2017, at 12:09 PM, Catalin Dominte 
> wrote:

MX104 has 4gb Memory and MX80 comes with 2. If you are running full BGP
tables, you might want to consider this too.


*Catalin Dominte | Senior Network Consultant*

Nocsult Ltd  | 11 Castle Hill  |  Maidenhead  |  Berkshire  |  SL6 4AA  |
Phone:  +44 (0)1628 302 007

VAT registration number: GB 180957674  |  Company registration number:
08886349
P Please consider the environment - Do you really need to print this email?

THIS COMMUNICATION MAY CONTAIN CONFIDENTIAL AND/OR OTHERWISE PROPRIETARY
MATERIAL and is thus for use only by the intended recipient. If you
received this in error, please contact the sender and delete the email and
its attachments from all computers.

On 1 December 2017 at 18:03:15, Alain Hebert 
(aheb...@pubnix.net) wrote:

   Hi,

   Beside the extra RE-slot of the 104 and a few more slots.


   Is there any more drawback (beside the knowned hella slow RE which
is the same as the 104) of opting for the MX80?

   It looks like 4 10Gb XFP + 2 slot of 2 10Gb XFP is the maximum in
the 80 case.  Which will be viable for the project.


   PS: With a small budget, and they're buying 2 boxes anyway... and
they're not interested in MS-MIC

--
-
Alain Hebert aheb...@pubnix.net
PubNIX Inc.
50 boul. St-Charles
P.O. Box 26770 Beaconsfield, Quebec H9W 6G7
Tel: 514-990-5911 http://www.pubnix.net Fax: 
514-990-9443

___
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

___
juniper-nsp mailing list juniper-nsp@puck.nether.net
https://puck.nether.net/mailman/listinfo/juniper-nsp

Re: [j-nsp] MX80 v MX104

[Colton Conor]

I was about to say check out the MX204 or MX150 if it meets the need. These
are newer boxes.

Anyone have an idea what the list price is for both of these boxes? Do they
have locked features, or special upgrades like the MX5-80 had?

On Fri, Dec 1, 2017 at 12:54 PM, Raphael Maunier 
wrote:

> Go for MX204 : https://www.juniper.net/us/en/products-services/routing/mx-
> series/mx204/
>
> RFS 02/2018
>
> Raphael
>
> On 01/12/2017 19:42, "juniper-nsp on behalf of Jerry Jones" <
> juniper-nsp-boun...@puck.nether.net on behalf of jjo...@danrj.com> wrote:
>
> Go with MX104
>
> Form factor much better. nothing on the back, have option for second
> RE if desired, RE is slightly better, 2 more MIC slots, cost is generally
> less on 104 than 80, if using ay 10G then it for sure should be, and if I
> remember correct 104 is quieter, but have not played on 80 for some timen
> ow as ony use 104s for last couple years
>
>
> On Dec 1, 2017, at 12:09 PM, Catalin Dominte <
> catalin.domi...@nocsult.net> wrote:
>
> MX104 has 4gb Memory and MX80 comes with 2. If you are running full BGP
> tables, you might want to consider this too.
>
>
> *Catalin Dominte | Senior Network Consultant*
>
> Nocsult Ltd  | 11 Castle Hill  |  Maidenhead  |  Berkshire  |  SL6
> 4AA  |
> Phone:  +44 (0)1628 302 007
>
> VAT registration number: GB 180957674  |  Company registration number:
> 08886349
> P Please consider the environment - Do you really need to print this
> email?
>
> THIS COMMUNICATION MAY CONTAIN CONFIDENTIAL AND/OR OTHERWISE
> PROPRIETARY
> MATERIAL and is thus for use only by the intended recipient. If you
> received this in error, please contact the sender and delete the email
> and
> its attachments from all computers.
>
> On 1 December 2017 at 18:03:15, Alain Hebert (aheb...@pubnix.net)
> wrote:
>
>Hi,
>
>Beside the extra RE-slot of the 104 and a few more slots.
>
>
>Is there any more drawback (beside the knowned hella slow RE which
> is the same as the 104) of opting for the MX80?
>
>It looks like 4 10Gb XFP + 2 slot of 2 10Gb XFP is the maximum in
> the 80 case.  Which will be viable for the project.
>
>
>PS: With a small budget, and they're buying 2 boxes anyway... and
> they're not interested in MS-MIC
>
> --
> -
> Alain Hebert aheb...@pubnix.net
> PubNIX Inc.
> 50 boul. St-Charles
> P.O. Box 26770 Beaconsfield, Quebec H9W 6G7
> Tel: 514-990-5911 http://www.pubnix.net Fax: 514-990-9443
>
> ___
> 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
>
___
juniper-nsp mailing list juniper-nsp@puck.nether.net
https://puck.nether.net/mailman/listinfo/juniper-nsp

Re: [j-nsp] [c-nsp] LACP between router VMs (James Bensley)

[adamv0025]

Hey,

> local link and not forwarded by the soft bridge by default (I do not know of
> any hardware bridges that allow you to disabled this restriction, if you know
> of any I would be interested.  
>
My understanding is that Carrier-Ethernet grade switches/routers should allow 
you to peer/drop/tunnel/forward L2 protocols. 
If you're in be business long enough you may remember migrations from 
leased-lines to frame-relay and then from FR to MPLS and then from L3VPNs to 
L2VPNs to complete the circle. 
These L2 services especially the point-to-point ones, that's where customers 
pretty much expect the same properties as they used to have in leased-lines or 
FR services, basically just a pipe where MTU is not an issue and can transport 
anything from L2 up so they can run their own MPLS/DC networks over these 
pipes. 

> 
> Out of curiosity what is your use case that you need to use LACP to
> communicate with VMs?
> 
Large scale ISP network simulations (for proof of concept testing of various 
designs/migrations/etc).
This allows me to verify my designs, how the technology works on selected code 
versions -if there are any bugs, interworking between vendors. 
And there are the provisioning and network monitoring systems, new SDN 
approaches that can be tested in this virtual environment, you name it.   
Since it's all virtual one can simulate complete networks rather than scaled 
down slices used in physical labs, so I can see the effects of topology-based 
route-reflection in terms of routes distribution, the effects of node or link 
failures on traffic-engineering and possible congestion as a result across the 
whole backbone all in 1:1 scale, but the important point is to make the 
simulated control-plane as close to reality as possible hence the need for LACP.
 
Speaking of scale, the fact that the VFP is always at 100% CPU is not helping 
-reminds me of the good old Dynamips -but at least there you could fix it with 
an idle value. 
Having hundreds of these VNFs running is not very green. 
 

adam

___
juniper-nsp mailing list juniper-nsp@puck.nether.net
https://puck.nether.net/mailman/listinfo/juniper-nsp

Re: [j-nsp] [c-nsp] LACP between router VMs (James Bensley)

[Vincent Bernat]

 ❦  1 décembre 2017 21:43 -0800, Chris Burton  :

> LACP and LLDP (and the like) are link local only protocols (would need
> to dig through the specifications to find the exact rules), they
> should not be forwarded by the bridge

802.1Q-2005, 8.6.3 and 8.13.4. However, some bridges are allowed to
forward those frames: two port mac relays can forward frames when
destination is 01-80-C2-00-00-03 (802.1Q-2011, dunno which part since
it's not freely available) and QinQ bridges can forward frames when the
destination is 01-80-C2-00-00-00 (LLDP frames can use those MAC
addresses since 802.1AB-2009, dunno if there is something similar for
LACP).
-- 
Use the fundamental control flow constructs.
- The Elements of Programming Style (Kernighan & Plauger)
___
juniper-nsp mailing list juniper-nsp@puck.nether.net
https://puck.nether.net/mailman/listinfo/juniper-nsp

Re: [j-nsp] EX4200 virtual chassis

[Victor Sudakov]

Doug McIntyre wrote:
> On Mon, Nov 27, 2017 at 08:57:07AM +0700, Victor Sudakov wrote:
> > We are planning to add backup switches in a Virtual Chassis
> > configuration to our existing EX4200s.
> ...
> > If I have a standalone EX4200, should I power it off before plugging
> > in the Virtual Chassis Cable for the first time, and connecting
> > another (powered off) EX4200? 
> > 
> > The links above say only that the desired master should be powered on
> > first, but nothing is said about the possibility of hot plug
> > connection.
> 
> I don't know about "should", but I've never had a problem moving VC cabling
> around, unplugging, plugging. The cables aren't "smart"  (AFAIK), so its not
> like the box can detect if a VC cable gets attached, only if there is 
> something
> on the other end.
> 
> I would expect changing from standalone to virtual chassis would be a
> service affecting change though, so be prepared to stop passing traffic if
> this isn't done in a maint window.

Encouraged by your reply, I hot-plugged the cable and another switch
(in a lab environment) and all went well. The cable is indeed not
smart, there was nothing in /var/log/messages when I attached the
cable and the powered off switch. When I powered the second switch on,
a new configuration was generated automagically (with new interfaces
alongside the old ones) and the VC started working as a single unit.

I was also pleasantly surprised by the fact that the RS232 management
console follows the master chassis no matter which is the current
master (so you don't have to disconnect and reconnect it). Don't know
how they do it but I love Juniper!

-- 
Victor Sudakov,  VAS4-RIPE, VAS47-RIPN
AS43859
___
juniper-nsp mailing list juniper-nsp@puck.nether.net
https://puck.nether.net/mailman/listinfo/juniper-nsp