Re: [j-nsp] MX304 Port Layout
On 7/4/23 09:11, Saku Ytti wrote: You must have misunderstood. When they fully scale the current design, the design offers 100T capacity, but they've bought 400T of ports. 3/4 ports are overhead to build the design, to connect the pizzaboxes together. All ports are used, but only 1/4 are revenue. Thanks, makes sense. This is one of the reasons I prefer to use Ethernet switches to interconnect devices in large data centre deployments. Connecting stuff directly into the core routers or directly together eats up a bunch of ports, without necessarily using all the available capacity. But to be fair, at the scale AWS run, I'm not exactly sure how I'd do things. Mark. ___ juniper-nsp mailing list juniper-nsp@puck.nether.net https://puck.nether.net/mailman/listinfo/juniper-nsp
Re: [j-nsp] MX304 Port Layout
On Tue, 4 Jul 2023 at 08:34, Mark Tinka wrote: > Yes, I watched this NANOG session and was also quite surprised when they > mentioned that they only plan for 25% usage of the deployed capacity. > Are they giving themselves room to peak before they move to another chip > (considering that they are likely in a never-ending installation/upgrade > cycle), or trying to maintain line-rate across a vast number of packet > sizes? Or both? You must have misunderstood. When they fully scale the current design, the design offers 100T capacity, but they've bought 400T of ports. 3/4 ports are overhead to build the design, to connect the pizzaboxes together. All ports are used, but only 1/4 are revenue. -- ++ytti ___ juniper-nsp mailing list juniper-nsp@puck.nether.net https://puck.nether.net/mailman/listinfo/juniper-nsp
