Re: [j-nsp] MX304 - Edge Router
Hi, On Thu, Oct 26, 2023 at 12:09:39PM -0400, Tom Beecher wrote: > > Did I mention Arista is not spending valuable engineer time on all this > > license shit, but on actually making great products? > > Oh they aren't? > > https://www.arista.com/en/support/product-documentation/eos-feature-licensing There are licenses, and they do expect you to actually buy them (which I do not particularily object to, as long as the license price is not like 5x the price of the hardware). But there is no single line of code *anywhere* that deals with licensing, not only "no enforcement" but actually no way to even enter any sort of licensing thing into the device itself. As I said, their engineers are busy making good products. Other vendors prefer to build convoluted license checking/enforcement schemes, and neglect overall software quality. We've made our choice. > Arista will almost certainly move towards a licensing model similar to > other vendors at some point once their growth curve slows and they need to > start squeezing more revenue out of what they are selling. We'll see. Maybe there will be someone else then who is not intent on annoying their customers, but on actually building a good working relationship. (I do seem to remember that at a time Juniper had the reputation on very high quality software, and a good TAC, and 'that other vendor' started doing the licensing bullshit, driving customers away... seems someone in product marketing misunderstood the "market leader" bullshit from 'that other vendor' in a big way) gert -- "If was one thing all people took for granted, was conviction that if you feed honest figures into a computer, honest figures come out. Never doubted it myself till I met a computer with a sense of humor." Robert A. Heinlein, The Moon is a Harsh Mistress Gert Doering - Munich, Germany g...@greenie.muc.de signature.asc Description: PGP signature ___ juniper-nsp mailing list juniper-nsp@puck.nether.net https://puck.nether.net/mailman/listinfo/juniper-nsp
Re: [j-nsp] MX304 - Edge Router
> > Did I mention Arista is not spending valuable engineer time on all this > license shit, but on actually making great products? > Oh they aren't? https://www.arista.com/en/support/product-documentation/eos-feature-licensing Arista will almost certainly move towards a licensing model similar to other vendors at some point once their growth curve slows and they need to start squeezing more revenue out of what they are selling. On Wed, Oct 25, 2023 at 9:36 AM Gert Doering via juniper-nsp < juniper-nsp@puck.nether.net> wrote: > Hi, > > On Wed, Oct 25, 2023 at 12:50:33PM +, Richard McGovern via juniper-nsp > wrote: > > The introduction of newer (well now like 2 years old) Flex licensing > > all newly purchased MX (which would include ALL MX304s) support > > only L2 in the base (free) license. For any L3 (even static) you > > require some additional level of license. > > There goes another vendor... > > Now, if the base price would have been *lowered* by the amount the > L3 features of a *MX router* cost extra now, this might have been an > option... but for my understanding, the base MX304 is already insanely > pricey, and then add licenses on top... nah, taking our money elsewhere. > > Did I mention Arista is not spending valuable engineer time on all this > license shit, but on actually making great products? > > gert > -- > Gert Doering - Munich, Germany > g...@greenie.muc.de > ___ > 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] MX304 - Edge Router
On 10/26/23 16:10, Aaron Gould wrote: After tshooting with JTAC yesterday, they've determined the built-in FPC to be a problem. They are doing RMA. Strange that when the 60-day trail license expired, I decided to reboot to see what would happen. I rebooted "request system reboot both-routing-engines" and that's when the router never worked after that. Strange that this would "fry" the FPC. Maybe there was already something wrong with it... I don't know. Perhaps I'll try to reproduce it after the new chassis comes back. -Aaron I wonder if the "request vmhost reboot routing-engine both" would've done anything differently According to the documentation, re1 is also seen as fpc0 if you put an LMIC in it. Would have been good to troubleshoot by putting an LMIC in the re1 slot to see if that works. But since re1 is fpc0/pic2, then it probably wouldn't work if JTAC are saying it's an FPC failure. Mark. ___ juniper-nsp mailing list juniper-nsp@puck.nether.net https://puck.nether.net/mailman/listinfo/juniper-nsp
Re: [j-nsp] MX304 - Edge Router
After tshooting with JTAC yesterday, they've determined the built-in FPC to be a problem. They are doing RMA. Strange that when the 60-day trail license expired, I decided to reboot to see what would happen. I rebooted "request system reboot both-routing-engines" and that's when the router never worked after that. Strange that this would "fry" the FPC. Maybe there was already something wrong with it... I don't know. Perhaps I'll try to reproduce it after the new chassis comes back. -Aaron I wonder if the "request vmhost reboot routing-engine both" would've done anything differently ___ juniper-nsp mailing list juniper-nsp@puck.nether.net https://puck.nether.net/mailman/listinfo/juniper-nsp
Re: [j-nsp] MX304 - Edge Router
On 10/26/23 15:47, Saku Ytti wrote: I urge everyone to give them the same message as I've given. Any type of license, even timed license, after it expires will not cause an outage. And enforcement would be 'call home' via 'http(s)' proxy, which reports the license-use data to Juniper sales, making it a commercial problem between Juniper and you. Proxy, so that you don't need Internet access on the device. Potentially you could ask for encryption-less mode, if you want to log on the proxy what is actually being sent to the vendor. I don't give flying or any other method of locomotion fuck about leaking information. I believe this is a very reasonable give/take compromise which is marketable, but if we try to start punching holes through esoteric concerns, we'll get boxes which die periodically because someone forgot to re-up. This is a real future that may happen, unless we demand it must not. I agree. Mark. ___ juniper-nsp mailing list juniper-nsp@puck.nether.net https://puck.nether.net/mailman/listinfo/juniper-nsp
Re: [j-nsp] MX304 - Edge Router
#1, sorry I opened up the Women in STEM discussion, was not meant to The comment about licenses – agree 100% with what was stated. “I'd suggest staying very close to our SE's for the desired outcome we want for this development. As we have seen before, Juniper appear reasonably open to operator feedback, but we would need to give it to them to begin with.” Could not agree more with the above!!! Regards, 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 Juniper Business Use Only On 10/26/23, 9:40 AM, "Mark Tinka" wrote: So my SE came back to me a short while ago to say that at present, routing protocols will not be disabled if an MX304 (or some future box/code designed for the same authorization framework) does not have the appropriate license installed. He did add, however, that Juniper are considering enforcing routing protocol licenses in the future, and that he cannot say, with any certainty, that this will not become a thing in the future. I'd suggest staying very close to our SE's for the desired outcome we want for this development. As we have seen before, Juniper appear reasonably open to operator feedback, but we would need to give it to them to begin with. Mark. ___ juniper-nsp mailing list juniper-nsp@puck.nether.net https://puck.nether.net/mailman/listinfo/juniper-nsp
Re: [j-nsp] MX304 - Edge Router
On Thu, 26 Oct 2023 at 16:40, Mark Tinka via juniper-nsp wrote: > I'd suggest staying very close to our SE's for the desired outcome we > want for this development. As we have seen before, Juniper appear > reasonably open to operator feedback, but we would need to give it to > them to begin with. I urge everyone to give them the same message as I've given. Any type of license, even timed license, after it expires will not cause an outage. And enforcement would be 'call home' via 'http(s)' proxy, which reports the license-use data to Juniper sales, making it a commercial problem between Juniper and you. Proxy, so that you don't need Internet access on the device. Potentially you could ask for encryption-less mode, if you want to log on the proxy what is actually being sent to the vendor. I don't give flying or any other method of locomotion fuck about leaking information. I believe this is a very reasonable give/take compromise which is marketable, but if we try to start punching holes through esoteric concerns, we'll get boxes which die periodically because someone forgot to re-up. This is a real future that may happen, unless we demand it must not. -- ++ytti ___ juniper-nsp mailing list juniper-nsp@puck.nether.net https://puck.nether.net/mailman/listinfo/juniper-nsp
Re: [j-nsp] MX304 - Edge Router
So my SE came back to me a short while ago to say that at present, routing protocols will not be disabled if an MX304 (or some future box/code designed for the same authorization framework) does not have the appropriate license installed. He did add, however, that Juniper are considering enforcing routing protocol licenses in the future, and that he cannot say, with any certainty, that this will not become a thing in the future. I'd suggest staying very close to our SE's for the desired outcome we want for this development. As we have seen before, Juniper appear reasonably open to operator feedback, but we would need to give it to them to begin with. Mark. ___ juniper-nsp mailing list juniper-nsp@puck.nether.net https://puck.nether.net/mailman/listinfo/juniper-nsp
Re: [j-nsp] MX304 - Edge Router
On 10/26/23 08:02, Saku Ytti wrote: Even if you believe/think this, it is not in your best interest to communicate anything like this, there is nothing you can win, and significant downside potential. As you can probably tell, I am not terribly politically correct :-). The coddle culture we live in today only ends up creating a generation that will not be competitive in the open market, because whether we like it or not, only competence gets compensated. You really can't force people to give you their money for a poor, expensive job done, much as we may believe it should be the case. 8th place trophies should never be a model. I believe the question is not about what data says, the question is, why does the data say that. And the thesis/belief is, data should not say that, that there is no fundamental reason why the data would say so. The question is, is the culture reinforcing this from day0, causing people to believe it is somehow inherent/natural. The reason the data should not say that is because there has been a serious amount of investment in creating scientists, engineers, mathematicians, technologists, CEO's and inventors from the female community over the past couple of decades. And yet, all the metrics still show that women are "under-represented" in these areas. So the explanation ends up going back to "upbringing, cultural socialization, oppression by men, e.t.c.". After all, if a woman has the opportunity to do male-dominated jobs or study male-dominated subjects, why wouldn't she, for whatever reason that may or may not be useful to her own person? After all, nothing screams equality like doing exactly what men can do, or what women can do. In other words, the idea that women (and little girls) may not have any personal interest in things that men are inherently interested in is completely inconceivable. >From scientific POV, we currently don't have any real reason to believe there are unplastic differences in the brain from birth which cause this. There might, but science doesn't know that. Scientifically we should today expect very even distribution, unless culturally biased. When we refuse to believe that, in general, men prefer building things and women prefer dealing with people, we are essentially trying to fix innately biological differences with culture. And while culture, on paper, sounds and feels good because it either elicits emotion (instead of logic) or results in censorship (instead of discourse), more often than not, biology always wins out. It's a bit like weight loss... you may starve yourself to lose excess body fat, but eventually, hunger always wins. So you need another strategy, one which maximizes weight loss, but without leaving your ravenous. The sad part is that by the time biology takes over, it is too late for the individual to benefit from a different decision they could have taken, earlier on in life. And what is worse for the next generation, is that those poor outcomes that afflict the individuals in their mid-40's or later, are never communicated down to the kids... because if that happens, the simulation that culture trumps biology would inevitably crumble. And that's just bad for business... But of course inequality, inequitability is everywhere, not an hyperbole, but you can't compare anything on how we choose who does what and come up with anything that resembles fair distribution. Zip code has a lot of predictive power where you'll end up in your life, and that is hardly your fault or merit. Top level managers are not just disproportionately men, but they are disproportionately men with +1.5SD height, and there is no scientific reason to believe zip code or height suggests stronger ability. It is just a really unfair world to live in, but luckily I am on the beneficiary side of the unfairness, which I am strong enough to accept. Well, the problem comes with how we define "fairness". If we say fairness is both men and women should have access to the same opportunities, that is fine. But if we say that fairness is both men and women should have the same outcomes, that becomes problematic. If equal outcome worked, half of all CEO's would be women, as much as half of all coal miners would be women. It's not like there is a shortage of corporations or mining companies looking to fill half of their staff with women... and yet they do not. Instead of looking deeply into why that is, popular culture will simply chalk it down to anything other than "opportunity" and "personal interest", e.g., being passed over, sexism, racism, pay gap, e.t.c. Moreover, since the "pay gap" suggests that women will earn less than men in any field where both are employable, you'd think that those companies would be 90% female-dominated, as they would be a lower cost-to-company. But again, that is not happening... why? It certainly can't be the combination of personal interest + meritocracy, can it :-)? I have
Re: [j-nsp] MX304 - Edge Router
On Thu, 26 Oct 2023 at 07:45, Mark Tinka via juniper-nsp wrote: > While there are some women who enjoy engineering, and some men who enjoy > nursing, most women don't enjoy engineering, and most men don't enjoy > nursing. I think we would move much farther ahead if we accepted this, > If you look at the data, on average, 70% of new enrollments at > university are women, and 60% of all graduands are women. And yet, 90% > of all STEM students are men, while 80% of all psychology students are > women. Perhaps there is a clue in there :-)... Even if you believe/think this, it is not in your best interest to communicate anything like this, there is nothing you can win, and significant downside potential. I believe the question is not about what data says, the question is, why does the data say that. And the thesis/belief is, data should not say that, that there is no fundamental reason why the data would say so. The question is, is the culture reinforcing this from day0, causing people to believe it is somehow inherent/natural. >From scientific POV, we currently don't have any real reason to believe there are unplastic differences in the brain from birth which cause this. There might, but science doesn't know that. Scientifically we should today expect very even distribution, unless culturally biased. But of course inequality, inequitability is everywhere, not an hyperbole, but you can't compare anything on how we choose who does what and come up with anything that resembles fair distribution. Zip code has a lot of predictive power where you'll end up in your life, and that is hardly your fault or merit. Top level managers are not just disproportionately men, but they are disproportionately men with +1.5SD height, and there is no scientific reason to believe zip code or height suggests stronger ability. It is just a really unfair world to live in, but luckily I am on the beneficiary side of the unfairness, which I am strong enough to accept. I have a curious anecdote about discriminatory outcomes, without any active discrimination. I think it's easier to discuss as it doesn't include any differences in the groups of people really. In Finland a minority natively speaks Swedish, majority Finnish. After 1000 years, the minority continues to statistically have better education, live longer, have more savings and higher salary. For this particular example, only rationale I've come up, which could explain it, is that the Swedish speaking minority choose other Swedish speaking people as their peers, so they feel lower sense of accomplishment performing at Finnish speaker mean level, which causes them to push themselves little bit further to achieve same satisfaction level as Finnish speaking majority would feel at lower level of accomplishment. Causing it to perpetuate indefinitely despite having 'fixed' all active discriminatory biases since forever. That is, if you ever create, through any mechanism at all, some biasing between groups, this bias will never completely go away. -- ++ytti ___ juniper-nsp mailing list juniper-nsp@puck.nether.net https://puck.nether.net/mailman/listinfo/juniper-nsp
