Re: [j-nsp] Any red flags on this MX240 configuration...
On Wed, 26 Feb 2020 at 17:21, Eric Van Tol wrote: > I could be wrong, but the way I understand it, the original SCB only has > 80Gb/s of fabric capacity. While the 16XGE MPC will technically work, it will > only work at half capacity. For full throughput capability, you would need > two SCBs for a total of 160Gb/s fabric capacity, but if you lose one of the > SCBs, you lose half your capacity. Again, my understanding could be wrong, so > someone please correct me if so. I believe you're wrong. SCB is 3.125Gbps SERDES, MX240/MX480 are (8+8) + (8+8) per MQ to/from fabric and MX960 is 8+8+8. So both SCB's up is 100Gbps on MX240/MX480 serdes per MQ to/from fabric, one down is 50Gbps (40Gbps needed for ucast) All SCB up is 75Gbps on MX960 serdes per MQ, one down is 50Gbps. 16X10GE unary replicates, without fabric failures SCB has enough on MX240/MX480 and nearly enough on MX960. With Fabric failure, not so great. MPC[12] binary replicates (so it needs double SERDES, 80G serdes to support 40G traffic). Has enough for unicast with fabric failures, but not for multicast. -- ++ytti ___ juniper-nsp mailing list juniper-nsp@puck.nether.net https://puck.nether.net/mailman/listinfo/juniper-nsp
Re: [j-nsp] Any red flags on this MX240 configuration...
On 26/Feb/20 17:03, Richard McGovern via juniper-nsp wrote: > In general, IMHO, if looking to upgrade older MXs, you should always at least > look at an MX204 solution too. I was thinking about this too, but that would depend on what the OP wants to use the router for. The only advice I'd give is, if possible, don't use older-generation RE's, SCB's, PSU's and fan trays. Unless you're getting them off the really really deep grey market, those shouldn't cost that much more if you get the current models (even if pre-owned). Mark. ___ juniper-nsp mailing list juniper-nsp@puck.nether.net https://puck.nether.net/mailman/listinfo/juniper-nsp
Re: [j-nsp] Any red flags on this MX240 configuration...
--- Begin Message --- I could tell you what that knob is for, but I would need to kill you afterwards __ I believe that knob can be set to Enhanced IP even with older SCB. I have a customer with this set, older SCB, no issues. Just sat, this knob should always be set to Enhanced IP for best performance/etc. I also agree with all the additional comments about RE/memory/64 bit support, etc. FYI only, Rich Richard McGovern Sr Sales Engineer, Juniper Networks 978-618-3342 I’d rather be lucky than good, as I know I am not good I don’t make the news, I just report it On 2/26/20, 9:59 AM, "Dave Bell" wrote: The documentation states its supported: https://www.juniper.net/documentation/en_US/release-independent/junos/topics/concept/enhanced-mx-scb-description-mx960.html It doesn't support "Enhanced IP/Enhanced Ethernet mode" though whatever that is... Dave On Wed, 26 Feb 2020 at 14:37, Benjamin Collet wrote: > On Wed, Feb 26, 2020 at 03:05:16PM +0100, Marcel Bößendörfer wrote: > > The MPC-3D-16XGE-SFPP even works with a 710-021523 / SCB-MX :-) > > On Wed, Feb 26, 2020 at 09:11:50AM -0500, Brendan Mannella wrote: > > We have MPC-3D-16XGE-SFPP and SCBE working in production. Haven’t noticed > > any issues. > > That's good to know. I wonder if there are any limitations whatsoever or > simply a mistake in the documentation and the Hardware Compatibility > Tool). > > -- > Benjamin Collet > ___ > juniper-nsp mailing list juniper-nsp@puck.nether.net > https://urldefense.com/v3/__https://puck.nether.net/mailman/listinfo/juniper-nsp__;!!NEt6yMaO-gk!R46SRRs9euIxe0gY5atGljZf0afP3vCSl3lO7LYoLz1BRc3HoyDW97Plj-FP1M-fIw$ > --- End Message --- ___ juniper-nsp mailing list juniper-nsp@puck.nether.net https://puck.nether.net/mailman/listinfo/juniper-nsp
Re: [j-nsp] [EXT] Any red flags on this MX240 configuration...
I'd avoid the older RE-S-2000-4096-S with multiple full tables and newer code. I have some older lab boxes that can't really handle it, but I keep them around just for lab testing. I had to trim down the full tables with AS Path Length filters to keep them from running out of RAM, swapping, and eventually crashing/core dumping. You really want a 64-bit capable RE, such as RE-S-1800X4-32G-S or newer. The rest of the hardware should be fine (as long as the newer REs support it, I didn't check.) On Wed, Feb 26, 2020 at 08:46:42AM -0500, Alain Hebert wrote: > Beside the RE-S-2000-4096-S being EOL. My experience with 16.2 was > pretty solid. > > We're planning to have 3 Full Routes BGP and the MPLS alphabet > soup, yadi yada. > > We don't want 2 RE since we'll use 2 MX240 and there is no point to > go for ISSU since the RE is EOL. > > 1x CHAS-BP-MX240-S > 1x FFANTRAY-MX240-HC > 1x RE-S-2000-4096-S > 1x SCBE-MX-S > 2x PWR-MX480-1200-AC > 1x MPC-3D-16XGE-SFPP ___ juniper-nsp mailing list juniper-nsp@puck.nether.net https://puck.nether.net/mailman/listinfo/juniper-nsp
Re: [j-nsp] Any red flags on this MX240 configuration...
--- Begin Message --- #1, yes 16XGE module works with all varieties if SCB. I assume you already own the equipment list. I therefore 'think' your question/concern is with such equipment, any concern going from 16.2 to some later release, which I am guessing might be something like 18.4R2-S3 (TAC recommended I believe). You should have no concerns, that I am aware of. If the list below is something you are planning to purchase (you must have at least 1 x MX, as you have experience with MX on 16.2), I would HIGHLY recommend that instead of below, you look at a MX204 instead. Very likely less cost, more performance (400GE capable), and you can pair any 2 MXs for your redundancy, as Routing (BGP) is the solution, not HW. The downside is, if you want more 10GE connections, you would need to use a proper 40GE Optic (MX205 4 x 100GE ports, support either 100GE or 40GE - QSFP+) and then use some sort of breakout scheme. The breakout scheme is generally an external patch panel of some sort - plenty [non-Juniper] options for this. In general, IMHO, if looking to upgrade older MXs, you should always at least look at an MX204 solution too. Just FYI. Rich Richard McGovern Sr Sales Engineer, Juniper Networks 978-618-3342 I’d rather be lucky than good, as I know I am not good I don’t make the news, I just report it On 2/26/20, 8:46 AM, "Alain Hebert" wrote: Beside the RE-S-2000-4096-S being EOL. My experience with 16.2 was pretty solid. We're planning to have 3 Full Routes BGP and the MPLS alphabet soup, yadi yada. We don't want 2 RE since we'll use 2 MX240 and there is no point to go for ISSU since the RE is EOL. 1x CHAS-BP-MX240-S 1x FFANTRAY-MX240-HC 1x RE-S-2000-4096-S 1x SCBE-MX-S 2x PWR-MX480-1200-AC 1x MPC-3D-16XGE-SFPP -- - Alain Hebertaheb...@pubnix.net PubNIX Inc. 50 boul. St-Charles P.O. Box 26770 Beaconsfield, Quebec H9W 6G7 Tel: 514-990-5911 https://urldefense.com/v3/__http://www.pubnix.net__;!!NEt6yMaO-gk!TijPAXAj8Uq34U6lspy0FkJmqZrDYdYw3bJlFWHv-45OdTbxjhuOid7PX8oqg5xrNw$ Fax: 514-990-9443 --- End Message --- ___ juniper-nsp mailing list juniper-nsp@puck.nether.net https://puck.nether.net/mailman/listinfo/juniper-nsp
Re: [j-nsp] Any red flags on this MX240 configuration...
The documentation states its supported: https://www.juniper.net/documentation/en_US/release-independent/junos/topics/concept/enhanced-mx-scb-description-mx960.html It doesn't support "Enhanced IP/Enhanced Ethernet mode" though whatever that is... Dave On Wed, 26 Feb 2020 at 14:37, Benjamin Collet wrote: > On Wed, Feb 26, 2020 at 03:05:16PM +0100, Marcel Bößendörfer wrote: > > The MPC-3D-16XGE-SFPP even works with a 710-021523 / SCB-MX :-) > > On Wed, Feb 26, 2020 at 09:11:50AM -0500, Brendan Mannella wrote: > > We have MPC-3D-16XGE-SFPP and SCBE working in production. Haven’t noticed > > any issues. > > That's good to know. I wonder if there are any limitations whatsoever or > simply a mistake in the documentation and the Hardware Compatibility > Tool). > > -- > Benjamin Collet > ___ > 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] Any red flags on this MX240 configuration...
On Wed, Feb 26, 2020 at 03:05:16PM +0100, Marcel Bößendörfer wrote: > The MPC-3D-16XGE-SFPP even works with a 710-021523 / SCB-MX :-) On Wed, Feb 26, 2020 at 09:11:50AM -0500, Brendan Mannella wrote: > We have MPC-3D-16XGE-SFPP and SCBE working in production. Haven’t noticed > any issues. That's good to know. I wonder if there are any limitations whatsoever or simply a mistake in the documentation and the Hardware Compatibility Tool). -- Benjamin Collet ___ juniper-nsp mailing list juniper-nsp@puck.nether.net https://puck.nether.net/mailman/listinfo/juniper-nsp
Re: [j-nsp] Any red flags on this MX240 configuration...
We have MPC-3D-16XGE-SFPP and SCBE working in production. Haven’t noticed any issues. On Wed, Feb 26, 2020 at 9:04 AM Benjamin Collet wrote: > Hi Alain, > > On Wed, Feb 26, 2020 at 08:46:42AM -0500, Alain Hebert wrote: > > Beside the RE-S-2000-4096-S being EOL. My experience with 16.2 was > > pretty solid. > > > > We're planning to have 3 Full Routes BGP and the MPLS alphabet soup, > > yadi yada. > > > > We don't want 2 RE since we'll use 2 MX240 and there is no point to > go > > for ISSU since the RE is EOL. > > > >1x CHAS-BP-MX240-S > >1x FFANTRAY-MX240-HC > >1x RE-S-2000-4096-S > >1x SCBE-MX-S > >2x PWR-MX480-1200-AC > >1x MPC-3D-16XGE-SFPP > > > I am not sure the MPC-3D-16XGE-SFPP can work with a SCBE-MX-S, it seems > you need at least a SCBE2 (same goes if you plan to insert a MPC7): > > > https://www.juniper.net/documentation/en_US/release-independent/junos/topics/concept/enhanced-mx-scb-description-mx960.html > > Cheers, > Ben > -- > Benjamin Collet > ___ > juniper-nsp mailing list juniper-nsp@puck.nether.net > https://puck.nether.net/mailman/listinfo/juniper-nsp > -- *Brendan Mannella* *CEOTeraSwitch Inc.Main/Support - 1.412.945.7045Direct - 1.412.945.7049Bare-Metal Servers . Colocation . Cloud . Connectivity* ___ juniper-nsp mailing list juniper-nsp@puck.nether.net https://puck.nether.net/mailman/listinfo/juniper-nsp
Re: [j-nsp] Any red flags on this MX240 configuration...
The MPC-3D-16XGE-SFPP even works with a 710-021523 / SCB-MX :-) Am Mi., 26. Feb. 2020 um 15:03 Uhr schrieb Benjamin Collet < juniper-...@clt.tf>: > Hi Alain, > > On Wed, Feb 26, 2020 at 08:46:42AM -0500, Alain Hebert wrote: > > Beside the RE-S-2000-4096-S being EOL. My experience with 16.2 was > > pretty solid. > > > > We're planning to have 3 Full Routes BGP and the MPLS alphabet soup, > > yadi yada. > > > > We don't want 2 RE since we'll use 2 MX240 and there is no point to > go > > for ISSU since the RE is EOL. > > > >1x CHAS-BP-MX240-S > >1x FFANTRAY-MX240-HC > >1x RE-S-2000-4096-S > >1x SCBE-MX-S > >2x PWR-MX480-1200-AC > >1x MPC-3D-16XGE-SFPP > > > I am not sure the MPC-3D-16XGE-SFPP can work with a SCBE-MX-S, it seems > you need at least a SCBE2 (same goes if you plan to insert a MPC7): > > > https://www.juniper.net/documentation/en_US/release-independent/junos/topics/concept/enhanced-mx-scb-description-mx960.html > > Cheers, > Ben > -- > Benjamin Collet > ___ > juniper-nsp mailing list juniper-nsp@puck.nether.net > https://puck.nether.net/mailman/listinfo/juniper-nsp > -- *Marcel Bößendörfer* Geschäftsführer / CEO *marbis GmbH* Griesbachstr. 10 76185 Karlsruhe, Germany Phone: +49 721 754044-11 Fax: +49 800 100 3860 E-Mail: m.boessendoer...@nitrado.net Web: marbis.net / nitrado.net *Registered Office | Sitz der Gesellschaft:* Karlsruhe *Register Court | Registergericht:* AG Mannheim, HRB 713868 *Managing Directors | Geschäftsführer:* Marco Balle, Marcel Bößendörfer Diese E-Mail enthält vertrauliche und/oder rechtlich geschützte Informationen. Wenn Sie nicht der richtige Adressat sind oder diese E-Mail irrtümlich erhalten haben, informieren Sie bitte sofort den Absender und vernichten Sie diese Mail. Das unerlaubte Kopieren sowie die unbefugte Weitergabe dieser Mail ist nicht gestattet. This e-mail may contain confidential and/or privileged information. If you are not the intended recipient (or have received this e-mail in error) please notify the sender immediately and delete this e-mail. Any unauthorized copying, disclosure or distribution of the material in this e-mail is strictly forbidden. ___ juniper-nsp mailing list juniper-nsp@puck.nether.net https://puck.nether.net/mailman/listinfo/juniper-nsp
Re: [j-nsp] Any red flags on this MX240 configuration...
Hi Alain, On Wed, Feb 26, 2020 at 08:46:42AM -0500, Alain Hebert wrote: > Beside the RE-S-2000-4096-S being EOL. My experience with 16.2 was > pretty solid. > > We're planning to have 3 Full Routes BGP and the MPLS alphabet soup, > yadi yada. > > We don't want 2 RE since we'll use 2 MX240 and there is no point to go > for ISSU since the RE is EOL. > > 1x CHAS-BP-MX240-S > 1x FFANTRAY-MX240-HC > 1x RE-S-2000-4096-S > 1x SCBE-MX-S > 2x PWR-MX480-1200-AC > 1x MPC-3D-16XGE-SFPP I am not sure the MPC-3D-16XGE-SFPP can work with a SCBE-MX-S, it seems you need at least a SCBE2 (same goes if you plan to insert a MPC7): https://www.juniper.net/documentation/en_US/release-independent/junos/topics/concept/enhanced-mx-scb-description-mx960.html Cheers, Ben -- Benjamin Collet ___ juniper-nsp mailing list juniper-nsp@puck.nether.net https://puck.nether.net/mailman/listinfo/juniper-nsp
Re: [j-nsp] Any red flags on this MX240 configuration...
The things Sebastian suggested definitely make sense. Otherwise (if it's a really really really good offer), go for it. For the things you've mentioned it'll do its job well. Also, JunOS 17.3 works just fine with it btw :-) Am Mi., 26. Feb. 2020 um 14:57 Uhr schrieb Sebastian Wiesinger < sebast...@karotte.org>: > * Alain Hebert [2020-02-26 14:47]: > > Beside the RE-S-2000-4096-S being EOL. My experience with 16.2 was > > pretty solid. > > > > We're planning to have 3 Full Routes BGP and the MPLS alphabet soup, > > yadi yada. > > > > We don't want 2 RE since we'll use 2 MX240 and there is no point to > go > > for ISSU since the RE is EOL. > > > >1x CHAS-BP-MX240-S > >1x FFANTRAY-MX240-HC > >1x RE-S-2000-4096-S > >1x SCBE-MX-S > >2x PWR-MX480-1200-AC > >1x MPC-3D-16XGE-SFPP > > Hi, > > I would definitively go for the chassis with the newer backplane > (CHAS-BP3-MX240-S). Changing the chassis at a later time is a pain. > Same with SCBE, why not use SCBE2-MX-S? They cost the same. > > Regards, > > Sebastian > > -- > GPG Key: 0x58A2D94A93A0B9CE (F4F6 B1A3 866B 26E9 450A 9D82 58A2 D94A 93A0 > B9CE) > 'Are you Death?' ... IT'S THE SCYTHE, ISN'T IT? PEOPLE ALWAYS NOTICE THE > SCYTHE. > -- Terry Pratchett, The Fifth Elephant > ___ > juniper-nsp mailing list juniper-nsp@puck.nether.net > https://puck.nether.net/mailman/listinfo/juniper-nsp > -- *Marcel Bößendörfer* Geschäftsführer / CEO *marbis GmbH* Griesbachstr. 10 76185 Karlsruhe, Germany Phone: +49 721 754044-11 Fax: +49 800 100 3860 E-Mail: m.boessendoer...@nitrado.net Web: marbis.net / nitrado.net *Registered Office | Sitz der Gesellschaft:* Karlsruhe *Register Court | Registergericht:* AG Mannheim, HRB 713868 *Managing Directors | Geschäftsführer:* Marco Balle, Marcel Bößendörfer Diese E-Mail enthält vertrauliche und/oder rechtlich geschützte Informationen. Wenn Sie nicht der richtige Adressat sind oder diese E-Mail irrtümlich erhalten haben, informieren Sie bitte sofort den Absender und vernichten Sie diese Mail. Das unerlaubte Kopieren sowie die unbefugte Weitergabe dieser Mail ist nicht gestattet. This e-mail may contain confidential and/or privileged information. If you are not the intended recipient (or have received this e-mail in error) please notify the sender immediately and delete this e-mail. Any unauthorized copying, disclosure or distribution of the material in this e-mail is strictly forbidden. ___ juniper-nsp mailing list juniper-nsp@puck.nether.net https://puck.nether.net/mailman/listinfo/juniper-nsp
Re: [j-nsp] Any red flags on this MX240 configuration...
* Alain Hebert [2020-02-26 14:47]: > Beside the RE-S-2000-4096-S being EOL. My experience with 16.2 was > pretty solid. > > We're planning to have 3 Full Routes BGP and the MPLS alphabet soup, > yadi yada. > > We don't want 2 RE since we'll use 2 MX240 and there is no point to go > for ISSU since the RE is EOL. > > 1x CHAS-BP-MX240-S > 1x FFANTRAY-MX240-HC > 1x RE-S-2000-4096-S > 1x SCBE-MX-S > 2x PWR-MX480-1200-AC > 1x MPC-3D-16XGE-SFPP Hi, I would definitively go for the chassis with the newer backplane (CHAS-BP3-MX240-S). Changing the chassis at a later time is a pain. Same with SCBE, why not use SCBE2-MX-S? They cost the same. Regards, Sebastian -- GPG Key: 0x58A2D94A93A0B9CE (F4F6 B1A3 866B 26E9 450A 9D82 58A2 D94A 93A0 B9CE) 'Are you Death?' ... IT'S THE SCYTHE, ISN'T IT? PEOPLE ALWAYS NOTICE THE SCYTHE. -- Terry Pratchett, The Fifth Elephant ___ juniper-nsp mailing list juniper-nsp@puck.nether.net https://puck.nether.net/mailman/listinfo/juniper-nsp
Re: [j-nsp] Next-table, route leaking, etc.
> -Original Message- > From: juniper-nsp On Behalf Of > Saku Ytti > Sent: Saturday, February 22, 2020 9:52 AM > To: Jeff Haas > Cc: Juniper NSP > Subject: Re: [j-nsp] Next-table, route leaking, etc. > > On Sat, 22 Feb 2020 at 00:26, Jeff Haas wrote: > > > The problem and example in the thread were past the ability of my brain to > follow this round. > > That said, there's some amount of plumbing that can permit a route that's > been imported into a VRF to locally resolve vs. the local VRF tables rather > than share the fate of its primary route. > > This plumbing isn't generally exposed at this time. Magic words > > "independent resolution". Just in case that fits the ER. :-) > > Ooh, very good news. Nathan, can you please talk to your account team > about this and get formal ER going? I'm happy to 'me too' my account team, > once you have the ER number. And Jeff's work is made whole lot easier > when he can go 'customers are asking this'. > I'll do plus one as well adam ___ juniper-nsp mailing list juniper-nsp@puck.nether.net https://puck.nether.net/mailman/listinfo/juniper-nsp
[j-nsp] Any red flags on this MX240 configuration...
Beside the RE-S-2000-4096-S being EOL. My experience with 16.2 was pretty solid. We're planning to have 3 Full Routes BGP and the MPLS alphabet soup, yadi yada. We don't want 2 RE since we'll use 2 MX240 and there is no point to go for ISSU since the RE is EOL. 1x CHAS-BP-MX240-S 1x FFANTRAY-MX240-HC 1x RE-S-2000-4096-S 1x SCBE-MX-S 2x PWR-MX480-1200-AC 1x MPC-3D-16XGE-SFPP -- - Alain Hebertaheb...@pubnix.net PubNIX Inc. 50 boul. St-Charles P.O. Box 26770 Beaconsfield, Quebec H9W 6G7 Tel: 514-990-5911 http://www.pubnix.netFax: 514-990-9443 ___ juniper-nsp mailing list juniper-nsp@puck.nether.net https://puck.nether.net/mailman/listinfo/juniper-nsp
