Re: [j-nsp] ACX5448 & ACX710
On 24/Jan/20 08:49, Saku Ytti wrote: > > When we asked JNPR why Jericho instead of Paradise, as we see these > chips for the same market, JNPR told that main motivation was OAM > features which they lack in Paradise but need in metro. The OAM story came up as well, as being the major improvements from Trident to Jericho. If I'm honest, given that everything has gone IP + Cloud, the demand for VPN's - as we've known them - is no longer there, really. Well, at least in our market anyway. At which point we introduce the fresh buzzword for 2020 - "SD-WAN". Oooh, but don't forget, we now have "SD-LAN" and "SD-WLAN". Just keeps getting better and better. In short, we don't really have a huge OAM demand simply because our customers just want simple IP. They just want to get to their Instagram. Mark. ___ juniper-nsp mailing list juniper-nsp@puck.nether.net https://puck.nether.net/mailman/listinfo/juniper-nsp
Re: [j-nsp] ACX5448 & ACX710
On Thu, 23 Jan 2020 at 22:52, Mark Tinka wrote: > If I'm honest, what I've noticed with most traditional vendors selling > Broadcom-based boxes is they are touting "price" as the killer use-case When we asked JNPR why Jericho instead of Paradise, as we see these chips for the same market, JNPR told that main motivation was OAM features which they lack in Paradise but need in metro. -- ++ytti ___ juniper-nsp mailing list juniper-nsp@puck.nether.net https://puck.nether.net/mailman/listinfo/juniper-nsp
Re: [j-nsp] ACX5448 & ACX710
On 23/Jan/20 23:17, quinn snyder wrote: > That would be something like the NCS540. > Its not an apples-to-apples comparison — as the 540 runs XR and the usual > things that come with that. There were some threads about it in [c-nsp] — > might be something to explore. I feel its a bit heavyweight for the metro, > but it gives you environmentally hardened 10GE with a variety of options for > uplink. Comes with Broadcom too, so definitely not apples-to-apples. Mark. ___ juniper-nsp mailing list juniper-nsp@puck.nether.net https://puck.nether.net/mailman/listinfo/juniper-nsp
Re: [j-nsp] ACX5448 & ACX710
On 23/Jan/20 23:02, Colton Conor wrote: > What is Cisco's upgrade path from the ASR920 if you need more 10G ports? NCS540, which for me, is a broken path. We are pushing for other considerations, but I'm not holding my breath. Mark. ___ juniper-nsp mailing list juniper-nsp@puck.nether.net https://puck.nether.net/mailman/listinfo/juniper-nsp
Re: [j-nsp] ACX5448 & ACX710
> From: Mark Tinka > Sent: Thursday, January 23, 2020 9:21 AM > > On 23/Jan/20 10:55, adamv0...@netconsultings.com wrote: > > > But it's gonna be your only choice if you want to do any sensible > > automation (or Junos). > > Over the past 10 years of hearing about all the buzz words, it's very safe to > say that "automation" is whatever it means to you :-). > Hahaha fair enough :) adam ___ juniper-nsp mailing list juniper-nsp@puck.nether.net https://puck.nether.net/mailman/listinfo/juniper-nsp
Re: [j-nsp] ACX5448 & ACX710
That would be something like the NCS540. Its not an apples-to-apples comparison — as the 540 runs XR and the usual things that come with that. There were some threads about it in [c-nsp] — might be something to explore. I feel its a bit heavyweight for the metro, but it gives you environmentally hardened 10GE with a variety of options for uplink. q. — Quinn Snyder | snyd...@gmail.com -= Sent via iPad. Please excuse grammar, spelling, and brevity =- > On Jan 23, 2020, at 14:03, Colton Conor wrote: > > What is Cisco's upgrade path from the ASR920 if you need more 10G ports? > >> On Thu, Jan 23, 2020 at 2:52 PM Mark Tinka wrote: >> >> >> >>> On 23/Jan/20 16:00, Shamen Snyder wrote: >>> >>> I have been following the ACX 710 for a while now. We have a use case >>> in rural markets where we need a dense 10G hardened 1 RU box. >>> >>> Looks like a promising box, hope the price is right. If not we may >>> have to jump to Cisco ASR920s >> >> If I'm honest, what I've noticed with most traditional vendors selling >> Broadcom-based boxes is they are touting "price" as the killer use-case >> for those boxes. For me, I'm not unwilling to spend a little bit more if >> I can sleep at night knowing I have data plane parity between a >> Broadcom-based box and an in-house-based box from the same traditional >> vendor. >> >> But time and time again, almost like clockwork, Broadcom-based boxes are >> being marketed as "Multi-Gigabit" and "Multi-Terabit" platforms with a >> gazillion ports at half the price of the "normal" box. What good is all >> that hardware if a simple feature doesn't work as I've known it to >> before "enhancing my network"? >> >> >>> >>> 4 100/40G (can be channelized to 4x25G or 4x10G) interfaces, 24 1/10G >>> interfaces. Broadcom QAX chipset. 320Gbps of throughput. 3GB buffer. >> >> What I saw about the ACX710 is it has a small FIB. Since we are used to >> filtering what enters our ASR920 FIB (and the ACX710 has about 12.8 >> times that), that's not a show-stopper. >> >> Mark. >> >> ___ >> 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] ACX5448 & ACX710
What is Cisco's upgrade path from the ASR920 if you need more 10G ports? On Thu, Jan 23, 2020 at 2:52 PM Mark Tinka wrote: > > > On 23/Jan/20 16:00, Shamen Snyder wrote: > > > I have been following the ACX 710 for a while now. We have a use case > > in rural markets where we need a dense 10G hardened 1 RU box. > > > > Looks like a promising box, hope the price is right. If not we may > > have to jump to Cisco ASR920s > > If I'm honest, what I've noticed with most traditional vendors selling > Broadcom-based boxes is they are touting "price" as the killer use-case > for those boxes. For me, I'm not unwilling to spend a little bit more if > I can sleep at night knowing I have data plane parity between a > Broadcom-based box and an in-house-based box from the same traditional > vendor. > > But time and time again, almost like clockwork, Broadcom-based boxes are > being marketed as "Multi-Gigabit" and "Multi-Terabit" platforms with a > gazillion ports at half the price of the "normal" box. What good is all > that hardware if a simple feature doesn't work as I've known it to > before "enhancing my network"? > > > > > > 4 100/40G (can be channelized to 4x25G or 4x10G) interfaces, 24 1/10G > > interfaces. Broadcom QAX chipset. 320Gbps of throughput. 3GB buffer. > > What I saw about the ACX710 is it has a small FIB. Since we are used to > filtering what enters our ASR920 FIB (and the ACX710 has about 12.8 > times that), that's not a show-stopper. > > Mark. > > ___ > 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] ACX5448 & ACX710
On 23/Jan/20 16:00, Shamen Snyder wrote: > I have been following the ACX 710 for a while now. We have a use case > in rural markets where we need a dense 10G hardened 1 RU box. > > Looks like a promising box, hope the price is right. If not we may > have to jump to Cisco ASR920s If I'm honest, what I've noticed with most traditional vendors selling Broadcom-based boxes is they are touting "price" as the killer use-case for those boxes. For me, I'm not unwilling to spend a little bit more if I can sleep at night knowing I have data plane parity between a Broadcom-based box and an in-house-based box from the same traditional vendor. But time and time again, almost like clockwork, Broadcom-based boxes are being marketed as "Multi-Gigabit" and "Multi-Terabit" platforms with a gazillion ports at half the price of the "normal" box. What good is all that hardware if a simple feature doesn't work as I've known it to before "enhancing my network"? > > 4 100/40G (can be channelized to 4x25G or 4x10G) interfaces, 24 1/10G > interfaces. Broadcom QAX chipset. 320Gbps of throughput. 3GB buffer. What I saw about the ACX710 is it has a small FIB. Since we are used to filtering what enters our ASR920 FIB (and the ACX710 has about 12.8 times that), that's not a show-stopper. Mark. ___ juniper-nsp mailing list juniper-nsp@puck.nether.net https://puck.nether.net/mailman/listinfo/juniper-nsp
Re: [j-nsp] Long communities (for 4-byte ASN) and static routes
Once upon a time, Chris Adams said: > We have some route policy applied based on communities set directly on > static routes. That works fine for us (with a 2-byte ASN), but doesn't > appear to accept 4-byte ASN long communities. I just get an error about > an invalid community. > > Am I missing something, or does JUNOS not support this? Never mind, it's the former... my Google-fu got better about 3 seconds after I hit "send" (the usual event). For the record though, use "large:::", instead of just ":". -- Chris Adams ___ juniper-nsp mailing list juniper-nsp@puck.nether.net https://puck.nether.net/mailman/listinfo/juniper-nsp
[j-nsp] Long communities (for 4-byte ASN) and static routes
We have some route policy applied based on communities set directly on static routes. That works fine for us (with a 2-byte ASN), but doesn't appear to accept 4-byte ASN long communities. I just get an error about an invalid community. Am I missing something, or does JUNOS not support this? -- Chris Adams ___ juniper-nsp mailing list juniper-nsp@puck.nether.net https://puck.nether.net/mailman/listinfo/juniper-nsp
Re: [j-nsp] ACX5448 & ACX710
I have been following the ACX 710 for a while now. We have a use case in rural markets where we need a dense 10G hardened 1 RU box. Looks like a promising box, hope the price is right. If not we may have to jump to Cisco ASR920s 4 100/40G (can be channelized to 4x25G or 4x10G) interfaces, 24 1/10G interfaces. Broadcom QAX chipset. 320Gbps of throughput. 3GB buffer. On Tue, Jan 21, 2020 at 11:38 AM Mark Tinka wrote: > Hi all. > > My Juniper SE is pressuring me to test the ACX boxes per subject. > > These are shipping with Jericoh 2c and Qumran 2c chip sets. > > For anyone that has deployed these, are you happy, particularly if you > have previous Trio experience? > > As some of you know, I generally shy away from merchant silicon, > especially from traditional equipment vendors such as Juniper and Cisco. > > All feedback is much appreciated. Thanks. > > Mark. > ___ > 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] ACX5448 & ACX710
I had that conversation the again other day - someone said they were working on "automation" and when I probed deeper it revealed some (very useful, albeit not scalable) scripting. 'You keep using that word. I do not think it means what you think it means' seems to be the gist of most "automation" conversations, and I'm guilty often as not - 'automate it' seems to be a catch all for most of our operations issues. - Thomas Scott | mr.thomas.sc...@gmail.com On Thu, Jan 23, 2020 at 4:21 AM Mark Tinka wrote: > > > On 23/Jan/20 10:55, adamv0...@netconsultings.com wrote: > > > But it's gonna be your only choice if you want to do any sensible > automation > > (or Junos). > > Over the past 10 years of hearing about all the buzz words, it's very > safe to say that "automation" is whatever it means to you :-). > > Mark. > ___ > 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] ACX5448 & ACX710
On 23/Jan/20 10:55, adamv0...@netconsultings.com wrote: > But it's gonna be your only choice if you want to do any sensible automation > (or Junos). Over the past 10 years of hearing about all the buzz words, it's very safe to say that "automation" is whatever it means to you :-). Mark. ___ juniper-nsp mailing list juniper-nsp@puck.nether.net https://puck.nether.net/mailman/listinfo/juniper-nsp
Re: [j-nsp] ACX5448 & ACX710
> Mark Tinka > Sent: Wednesday, January 22, 2020 6:46 PM > > On 22/Jan/20 20:39, Tim Durack wrote: > > > If you can stomach the BU wars, UADP is a nice ASIC - I think the > > Cat9k has legs, but the Enterprise BU is definitely in a parallel > > universe. I asked about porting XR to run on UADP. That didn't really go > over well. > > Personally, I think IOS XR is too heavy for the Metro. > But it's gonna be your only choice if you want to do any sensible automation (or Junos). adam ___ juniper-nsp mailing list juniper-nsp@puck.nether.net https://puck.nether.net/mailman/listinfo/juniper-nsp
Re: [j-nsp] ACX5448 & ACX710
> Mark Tinka > Sent: Thursday, January 23, 2020 7:01 AM > > This is one of the reasons operators with enough in-house coding skill are > seriously looking to build (or already building) their own routers with DPDK > on white boxes + friends, even if those solutions may be proprietary and > used in targeted deployments, e.g., distributed low-scale edge, e.t.c. > Vendors need to wake up and realize they can't be the only ones not willing > to feel the impact of an age where the kids don't want to pay for data. > I think they are getting the message, nowadays you can run your custom in-house built routing protocols in their SW or run their NOS on a custom box, or skip the Control-Plane altogether while programming the FIBs directly. adam ___ juniper-nsp mailing list juniper-nsp@puck.nether.net https://puck.nether.net/mailman/listinfo/juniper-nsp
