Re: [j-nsp] Thanks for all the fish

2024-01-09 Thread Mark Tinka via juniper-nsp 



On 1/10/24 09:04, Forrest Christian (List Account) wrote:

I find it frustrating that things one would expect to be included in 
any layer 3 switch has become additional revenue opportunities.


"The switch hardware is $x.  Oh you want the software too?  Oh,  
that's an additional cost.   L3 switching?  Oh,  that's an extra 
feature.  OSPF? Oh that's not included with the L3 license so that 
will be extra too. Oh and by the way,  you aren't buying a perpetual 
license anymore so be sure to pay us the fees for all the software 
functionality every year".


Yes I know the above isn't completely 100% accurate but it definitely 
is how it seems anymore.


I get charging extra for advanced features,  but when basic features 
that pretty much everyone wants and uses becomes an add-on and not 
perpetual,  it tends to make me start looking for a different vendor.


In our hubris to "decouple the control plane from the data plane (tm)", 
we, instead, decoupled the software/hardware integration from a single 
vendor.


So hardware folk make their own cut, and software folk make their own 
cut. And they are not the same people.


Welcome to the "white box" and "software-only" era.

Mark.

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

Re: [j-nsp] Thanks for all the fish

2024-01-09 Thread Forrest Christian (List Account) via juniper-nsp 
On Tue, Jan 9, 2024, 4:22 AM Mark Tinka via juniper-nsp <
juniper-nsp@puck.nether.net> wrote:

> There is no shortage of cheap ports. The issue is how useful those ports
> are beyond just "speed".
>

I find it frustrating that things one would expect to be included in any
layer 3 switch has become additional revenue opportunities.

"The switch hardware is $x.  Oh you want the software too?  Oh,  that's an
additional cost.   L3 switching?  Oh,  that's an extra feature.  OSPF? Oh
that's not included with the L3 license so that will be extra too. Oh and
by the way,  you aren't buying a perpetual license anymore so be sure to
pay us the fees for all the software functionality every year".

Yes I know the above isn't completely 100% accurate but it definitely is
how it seems anymore.

I get charging extra for advanced features,  but when basic features that
pretty much everyone wants and uses becomes an add-on and not perpetual,
it tends to make me start looking for a different vendor.
___
juniper-nsp mailing list juniper-nsp@puck.nether.net
https://puck.nether.net/mailman/listinfo/juniper-nsp

Re: [j-nsp] Thanks for all the fish

2024-01-09 Thread Rob Foehl via juniper-nsp 
On Tue, 2024-01-09 at 10:55 +0200, Saku Ytti via juniper-nsp wrote:
> What do we think of HPE acquiring JNPR?

I'm just hoping the port checker gets updated to show which slots will
accept a fresh magenta cartridge in order to bring BGP back up...

(Just kidding -- but only because it's the wrong HP for that particular
manifestation of the current rent-seeking licensing trajectory.)

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

Re: [j-nsp] Juniper QFX5200-32c and QSFP28 channelized optics

2024-01-09 Thread Richard McGovern via juniper-nsp 
Yes. I forgot about that option. Thanks for bringing that up.

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 1/9/24, 10:47 AM, "Chriztoffer Hansen"  wrote:
I can confirm using a QSFP+ to SFP+ adapter works, too. (Lane 0 being wired
to the front, lane 1-3 are not used)

With the following configuration

fpc 0 {
pic 0 {
/* Set in groups of four, e.g. 0-3, Here 8-11 */
port 8 {
channel-speed 10g;
}
port 9 {
channel-speed 10g;
}
port 10 {
channel-speed 10g;
}
port 11 {
channel-speed 10g;
}
}
}

With the following type of converter optic. Example -
https://urldefense.com/v3/__https://www.fs.com/de-en/products/72582.html__;!!NEt6yMaO-gk!F7CPnpSnZpSXCLUjJg7ZJZW-4EwnnuO6ZEpuqfTNbXUdi7T4_PbDtVrokE_DOROtLHGyiRFKFH70pDnNdKL9rYBk1FIdvyvw$
  (QSFP+ to 10G SFP+)
https://urldefense.com/v3/__https://www.fs.com/de-en/products/178066.html__;!!NEt6yMaO-gk!F7CPnpSnZpSXCLUjJg7ZJZW-4EwnnuO6ZEpuqfTNbXUdi7T4_PbDtVrokE_DOROtLHGyiRFKFH70pDnNdKL9rYBk1LwF-waO$
  (QSFP28 to 25G SFP28)

(This is on 5120-32c)

On Tue, 9 Jan 2024 at 15:39, Richard McGovern via juniper-nsp <
juniper-nsp@puck.nether.net> wrote:

> For 10G support, you need to use a 40G [proper] Optic and channelize this
> to 4 x 10G.
>
> Just FYI. Rih
>
> 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 12/29/23, 12:44 PM, "Lee Starnes" 
> mailto:lee.t.star...@gmail.com>> wrote:
> Thanks for the info and links Tobias. really helpful. It must just be a
> Juniper thing that it supports only 25G because on Cisco and Mikrotik it
> supports down to 1G. Anyway, at least I have answers and a solution.
>
> Best,
>
> -Lee
>
> On Fri, Dec 29, 2023 at 1:31 AM Tobias Heister via juniper-nsp <
> juniper-nsp@puck.nether.net>>
>  wrote:
>
> > Hi,
> >
> > While it sometimes works to let 25G transceivers run at 10G (depending
> > on Transceiver and Device(s)) i think in this case you will need a
> > different transceiver.
> >
> > See e.g. HCT for reference:
> > https://apps.juniper.net/hct/product/?prd=QFX5200-32C
> >
> > the PSM only lists 25 and 100 as being supported:
> > https://apps.juniper.net/hct/model/?component=JNP-QSFP-100G-PSM4
> >
> > For 10G SM Breakout something like
> > https://apps.juniper.net/hct/model/?component=JNP-QSFP-4X10GE-LR would
> > be the way to go.
> >
> >
> > regards
> > Tobias
> >
> > Am 29.12.2023 um 02:38 schrieb Lee Starnes via juniper-nsp:
> > > Hello everyone,
> > >
> > > I am running into an issue on our QFX5200 switches where I have
> > installed a
> > > QSFP-100G-PSM4 optic. This can do 1G/10G/25G on the 4 channels. My
> issue
> > is
> > > that I am not able to get the interfaces to go to 10G even though I
> have
> > > set them as such.
> > >
> > > If setting all 4 channels to 10G only a single interface shows at 100G.
> > If
> > > I set them all to 25G, all 4 show as 25G. Then if I change one of the
> > > channels to 10G, all 4 remain as 25G.
> > >
> > > Is this an issue with how I am setting this up or an issue with the
> type
> > of
> > > Optic being used? Below is the config for the ports in the last state I
> > > tested.
> > >
> > > chassis {
> > >  fpc 0 {
> > >  pic 0 {
> > >  port 0 {
> > >  channel-speed 10g;
> > >  }
> > >  port 1 {
> > >  channel-speed 25g;
> > >  }
> > >  port 2 {
> > >  channel-speed 25g;
> > >  }
> > >  port 3 {
> > >  channel-speed 25g;
> > >  }
> > >
> > > Thanks for any info or documents you can point me to.
> > >
> > > Best,
> > >
> > > -Lee
> > > ___
> > > juniper-nsp mailing list 
> > > juniper-nsp@puck.nether.net juniper-nsp@puck.nether.net>
> > >
>

Re: [j-nsp] Thanks for all the fish

2024-01-09 Thread Jared Mauch via juniper-nsp 



> On Jan 9, 2024, at 7:22 AM, Mark Tinka via juniper-nsp 
>  wrote:
> 
> 
> 
> On 1/9/24 11:47, Roger Wiklund wrote:
> 
>> 
>> Yeah the ISP business is no fun, I feel like everyone secretly wishes they 
>> can start buying Huawei again, It seems it's all about the lowest price per 
>> 100G/400G port.
> 
> There is no shortage of cheap ports. The issue is how useful those ports are 
> beyond just "speed".
> 
> This is where Trio does well, but this may not be enough to save the day.


I expect they would move their HP networking under Juniper due to the brand 
value.  To bring on all their devices JunOS and that value would be worthwhile. 
 Lets see what happens if it gets folded underneath or is independent.

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

Re: [j-nsp] Juniper QFX5200-32c and QSFP28 channelized optics

2024-01-09 Thread Chriztoffer Hansen via juniper-nsp 
I can confirm using a QSFP+ to SFP+ adapter works, too. (Lane 0 being wired
to the front, lane 1-3 are not used)

With the following configuration

fpc 0 {
pic 0 {
/* Set in groups of four, e.g. 0-3, Here 8-11 */
port 8 {
channel-speed 10g;
}
port 9 {
channel-speed 10g;
}
port 10 {
channel-speed 10g;
}
port 11 {
channel-speed 10g;
}
}
}

With the following type of converter optic. Example -
https://www.fs.com/de-en/products/72582.html (QSFP+ to 10G SFP+)
https://www.fs.com/de-en/products/178066.html (QSFP28 to 25G SFP28)

(This is on 5120-32c)

On Tue, 9 Jan 2024 at 15:39, Richard McGovern via juniper-nsp <
juniper-nsp@puck.nether.net> wrote:

> For 10G support, you need to use a 40G [proper] Optic and channelize this
> to 4 x 10G.
>
> Just FYI. Rih
>
> 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 12/29/23, 12:44 PM, "Lee Starnes"  wrote:
> Thanks for the info and links Tobias. really helpful. It must just be a
> Juniper thing that it supports only 25G because on Cisco and Mikrotik it
> supports down to 1G. Anyway, at least I have answers and a solution.
>
> Best,
>
> -Lee
>
> On Fri, Dec 29, 2023 at 1:31 AM Tobias Heister via juniper-nsp <
> juniper-nsp@puck.nether.net> wrote:
>
> > Hi,
> >
> > While it sometimes works to let 25G transceivers run at 10G (depending
> > on Transceiver and Device(s)) i think in this case you will need a
> > different transceiver.
> >
> > See e.g. HCT for reference:
> > https://apps.juniper.net/hct/product/?prd=QFX5200-32C
> >
> > the PSM only lists 25 and 100 as being supported:
> > https://apps.juniper.net/hct/model/?component=JNP-QSFP-100G-PSM4
> >
> > For 10G SM Breakout something like
> > https://apps.juniper.net/hct/model/?component=JNP-QSFP-4X10GE-LR would
> > be the way to go.
> >
> >
> > regards
> > Tobias
> >
> > Am 29.12.2023 um 02:38 schrieb Lee Starnes via juniper-nsp:
> > > Hello everyone,
> > >
> > > I am running into an issue on our QFX5200 switches where I have
> > installed a
> > > QSFP-100G-PSM4 optic. This can do 1G/10G/25G on the 4 channels. My
> issue
> > is
> > > that I am not able to get the interfaces to go to 10G even though I
> have
> > > set them as such.
> > >
> > > If setting all 4 channels to 10G only a single interface shows at 100G.
> > If
> > > I set them all to 25G, all 4 show as 25G. Then if I change one of the
> > > channels to 10G, all 4 remain as 25G.
> > >
> > > Is this an issue with how I am setting this up or an issue with the
> type
> > of
> > > Optic being used? Below is the config for the ports in the last state I
> > > tested.
> > >
> > > chassis {
> > >  fpc 0 {
> > >  pic 0 {
> > >  port 0 {
> > >  channel-speed 10g;
> > >  }
> > >  port 1 {
> > >  channel-speed 25g;
> > >  }
> > >  port 2 {
> > >  channel-speed 25g;
> > >  }
> > >  port 3 {
> > >  channel-speed 25g;
> > >  }
> > >
> > > Thanks for any info or documents you can point me to.
> > >
> > > Best,
> > >
> > > -Lee
> > > ___
> > > juniper-nsp mailing list juniper-nsp@puck.nether.net juniper-nsp@puck.nether.net>
> > >
> https://urldefense.com/v3/__https://puck.nether.net/mailman/listinfo/juniper-nsp__;!!NEt6yMaO-gk!AbnHWywEEDeGUttHzSqPdMr77UVBTZwTxHBmbOc2aX4jAbP3ToR5pp5zbJKE4mWA89WcIYMO_abVAdgp-9LYpIuFQd48K9FI$
> <
> https://urldefense.com/v3/__https:/puck.nether.net/mailman/listinfo/juniper-nsp__;!!NEt6yMaO-gk!AbnHWywEEDeGUttHzSqPdMr77UVBTZwTxHBmbOc2aX4jAbP3ToR5pp5zbJKE4mWA89WcIYMO_abVAdgp-9LYpIuFQd48K9FI$
> >
> > >
> > ___
> > juniper-nsp mailing list juniper-nsp@puck.nether.net juniper-nsp@puck.nether.net>
> >
> https://urldefense.com/v3/__https://puck.nether.net/mailman/listinfo/juniper-nsp__;!!NEt6yMaO-gk!AbnHWywEEDeGUttHzSqPdMr77UVBTZwTxHBmbOc2aX4jAbP3ToR5pp5zbJKE4mWA89WcIYMO_abVAdgp-9LYpIuFQd48K9FI$
> <
> https://urldefense.com/v3/__https:/puck.nether.net/mailman/listinfo/juniper-nsp__;!!NEt6yMaO-gk!AbnHWywEEDeGUttHzSqPdMr77UVBTZwTxHBmbOc2aX4jAbP3ToR5pp5zbJKE4mWA89WcIYMO_abVAdgp-9LYpIuFQd48K9FI$
> >
> >
>
>
> ___
> 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] Juniper QFX5200-32c and QSFP28 channelized optics

2024-01-09 Thread Richard McGovern via juniper-nsp 
For 10G support, you need to use a 40G [proper] Optic and channelize this to 4 
x 10G.

Just FYI. Rih

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 12/29/23, 12:44 PM, "Lee Starnes"  wrote:
Thanks for the info and links Tobias. really helpful. It must just be a
Juniper thing that it supports only 25G because on Cisco and Mikrotik it
supports down to 1G. Anyway, at least I have answers and a solution.

Best,

-Lee

On Fri, Dec 29, 2023 at 1:31 AM Tobias Heister via juniper-nsp <
juniper-nsp@puck.nether.net> wrote:

> Hi,
>
> While it sometimes works to let 25G transceivers run at 10G (depending
> on Transceiver and Device(s)) i think in this case you will need a
> different transceiver.
>
> See e.g. HCT for reference:
> https://apps.juniper.net/hct/product/?prd=QFX5200-32C
>
> the PSM only lists 25 and 100 as being supported:
> https://apps.juniper.net/hct/model/?component=JNP-QSFP-100G-PSM4
>
> For 10G SM Breakout something like
> https://apps.juniper.net/hct/model/?component=JNP-QSFP-4X10GE-LR would
> be the way to go.
>
>
> regards
> Tobias
>
> Am 29.12.2023 um 02:38 schrieb Lee Starnes via juniper-nsp:
> > Hello everyone,
> >
> > I am running into an issue on our QFX5200 switches where I have
> installed a
> > QSFP-100G-PSM4 optic. This can do 1G/10G/25G on the 4 channels. My issue
> is
> > that I am not able to get the interfaces to go to 10G even though I have
> > set them as such.
> >
> > If setting all 4 channels to 10G only a single interface shows at 100G.
> If
> > I set them all to 25G, all 4 show as 25G. Then if I change one of the
> > channels to 10G, all 4 remain as 25G.
> >
> > Is this an issue with how I am setting this up or an issue with the type
> of
> > Optic being used? Below is the config for the ports in the last state I
> > tested.
> >
> > chassis {
> >  fpc 0 {
> >  pic 0 {
> >  port 0 {
> >  channel-speed 10g;
> >  }
> >  port 1 {
> >  channel-speed 25g;
> >  }
> >  port 2 {
> >  channel-speed 25g;
> >  }
> >  port 3 {
> >  channel-speed 25g;
> >  }
> >
> > Thanks for any info or documents you can point me to.
> >
> > Best,
> >
> > -Lee
> > ___
> > juniper-nsp mailing list 
> > juniper-nsp@puck.nether.net
> > https://urldefense.com/v3/__https://puck.nether.net/mailman/listinfo/juniper-nsp__;!!NEt6yMaO-gk!AbnHWywEEDeGUttHzSqPdMr77UVBTZwTxHBmbOc2aX4jAbP3ToR5pp5zbJKE4mWA89WcIYMO_abVAdgp-9LYpIuFQd48K9FI$
> >
> ___
> juniper-nsp mailing list 
> juniper-nsp@puck.nether.net
> https://urldefense.com/v3/__https://puck.nether.net/mailman/listinfo/juniper-nsp__;!!NEt6yMaO-gk!AbnHWywEEDeGUttHzSqPdMr77UVBTZwTxHBmbOc2aX4jAbP3ToR5pp5zbJKE4mWA89WcIYMO_abVAdgp-9LYpIuFQd48K9FI$
>


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

Re: [j-nsp] Thanks for all the fish

2024-01-09 Thread Mark Tinka via juniper-nsp 



On 1/9/24 11:47, Roger Wiklund wrote:



Yeah the ISP business is no fun, I feel like everyone secretly wishes 
they can start buying Huawei again, It seems it's all about the 
lowest price per 100G/400G port.


There is no shortage of cheap ports. The issue is how useful those ports 
are beyond just "speed".


This is where Trio does well, but this may not be enough to save the day.

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

Re: [j-nsp] Thanks for all the fish

2024-01-09 Thread Roger Wiklund via juniper-nsp 
Not the first rumour of Juniper getting acquired. Last time it was Ericsson
and before that I think it was IBM or EMC, but perhaps this time it's the
real deal.

Juniper has been very successful in Enterprise with the Mist acquisition,
so I'm a bit surprised that the stock price is still stale.
Perhaps there's not enough money there or it's too little too late.

I wonder how they would merge Mist and Aruba, the top wifi players on the
market. Usually you acquire a company to fill a gap in the portfolio. But
perhaps that's primarily done for Junipers routing/dc/switching stuff then.

Yeah the ISP business is no fun, I feel like everyone secretly wishes they
can start buying Huawei again, It seems it's all about the lowest price per
100G/400G port.

/Roger

On Tue, Jan 9, 2024 at 10:19 AM Mark Tinka via juniper-nsp <
juniper-nsp@puck.nether.net> wrote:

>
>
> On 1/9/24 10:55, Saku Ytti via juniper-nsp wrote:
> > What do we think of HPE acquiring JNPR?
> >
> >
> > I guess it was given that something's gotta give, JNPR has lost to
> > dollar as an investment for more than 2 decades, which is not
> > sustainable in the way we model our economy.
> >
> > Out of all possible outcomes:
> > - JNPR suddenly starts to grow (how?)
> > - JNPR defaults
> > - JNPR gets acquired
> >
> > It's not the worst outcome, and from who acquires them, HPE isn't the
> > worst option, nor the best. I guess the best option would have been,
> > several large telcos buying it through a co-owned sister company, who
> > then are less interested in profits, and more interested in having a
> > device that works for them. Worst would probably have been Cisco,
> > Nokia, Huawei.
> >
> > I think the main concern is that SP business is kinda shitty business,
> > long sales times, low sales volumes, high requirements. But that's
> > also the side of JNPR that has USP.
> >
> > What is the future of NPU (Trio) and Pipeline (Paradise/Triton), why
> > would I, as HP exec, keep them alive? I need JNPR to put QFX in my DC
> > RFPs, I don't really care about SP markets, and I can realise some
> > savings by axing chip design and support. I think Trio is the best NPU
> > on the market, and I think we may have a real risk losing it, and no
> > mechanism that would guarantee new players surfacing to replace it.
> >
> > I do wish that JNPR had been more serious about how unsustainable it
> > is to lose to the dollar, and had tried more to capture markets. I
> > always suggested why not try Trio-PCI in newegg. Long tail is long,
> > maybe if you could buy it for 2-3k, there would be a new market of
> > Linux PCI users who want wire rate programmable features for multiple
> > ports? Maybe ESXi server integration for various pre-VPC protection
> > features at wire-rate? I think there might be a lot of potential in
> > NPU-PCI, perhaps even FAB-PCI, to have more ports than single NPU-PCI.
>
> HP could do what Geely did for Volvo - give them cash, leave them alone,
> but force them to wake up and get into the real world.
>
> I don't think HP can match Juniper intellectually in the networking
> space, so perhaps they add another sort of credibility to Juniper, as
> long as Juniper realize that they need to get cleverer at staying in
> business than just being technically smart.
>
> I am concerned that if we lose Trio, it would be the end of half-decent
> line-rate networking, which would level the playing field around
> Broadcom... good for them, but perhaps not so great for operators. On
> the other hand, as you say, the ISP business is in a terrible place
> right now, and not looking to get any better as the core of the Internet
> continues to be owned by a small % of the content crew.
>
> And then there was this, hehe:
>
>  https://hpjuniper.com/en/signature-gin/
>
> Hehe.
>
> 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] Thanks for all the fish

2024-01-09 Thread Mark Tinka via juniper-nsp 



On 1/9/24 10:55, Saku Ytti via juniper-nsp wrote:

What do we think of HPE acquiring JNPR?


I guess it was given that something's gotta give, JNPR has lost to
dollar as an investment for more than 2 decades, which is not
sustainable in the way we model our economy.

Out of all possible outcomes:
- JNPR suddenly starts to grow (how?)
- JNPR defaults
- JNPR gets acquired

It's not the worst outcome, and from who acquires them, HPE isn't the
worst option, nor the best. I guess the best option would have been,
several large telcos buying it through a co-owned sister company, who
then are less interested in profits, and more interested in having a
device that works for them. Worst would probably have been Cisco,
Nokia, Huawei.

I think the main concern is that SP business is kinda shitty business,
long sales times, low sales volumes, high requirements. But that's
also the side of JNPR that has USP.

What is the future of NPU (Trio) and Pipeline (Paradise/Triton), why
would I, as HP exec, keep them alive? I need JNPR to put QFX in my DC
RFPs, I don't really care about SP markets, and I can realise some
savings by axing chip design and support. I think Trio is the best NPU
on the market, and I think we may have a real risk losing it, and no
mechanism that would guarantee new players surfacing to replace it.

I do wish that JNPR had been more serious about how unsustainable it
is to lose to the dollar, and had tried more to capture markets. I
always suggested why not try Trio-PCI in newegg. Long tail is long,
maybe if you could buy it for 2-3k, there would be a new market of
Linux PCI users who want wire rate programmable features for multiple
ports? Maybe ESXi server integration for various pre-VPC protection
features at wire-rate? I think there might be a lot of potential in
NPU-PCI, perhaps even FAB-PCI, to have more ports than single NPU-PCI.


HP could do what Geely did for Volvo - give them cash, leave them alone, 
but force them to wake up and get into the real world.


I don't think HP can match Juniper intellectually in the networking 
space, so perhaps they add another sort of credibility to Juniper, as 
long as Juniper realize that they need to get cleverer at staying in 
business than just being technically smart.


I am concerned that if we lose Trio, it would be the end of half-decent 
line-rate networking, which would level the playing field around 
Broadcom... good for them, but perhaps not so great for operators. On 
the other hand, as you say, the ISP business is in a terrible place 
right now, and not looking to get any better as the core of the Internet 
continues to be owned by a small % of the content crew.


And then there was this, hehe:

    https://hpjuniper.com/en/signature-gin/

Hehe.

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

[j-nsp] Thanks for all the fish

2024-01-09 Thread Saku Ytti via juniper-nsp 
What do we think of HPE acquiring JNPR?


I guess it was given that something's gotta give, JNPR has lost to
dollar as an investment for more than 2 decades, which is not
sustainable in the way we model our economy.

Out of all possible outcomes:
   - JNPR suddenly starts to grow (how?)
   - JNPR defaults
   - JNPR gets acquired

It's not the worst outcome, and from who acquires them, HPE isn't the
worst option, nor the best. I guess the best option would have been,
several large telcos buying it through a co-owned sister company, who
then are less interested in profits, and more interested in having a
device that works for them. Worst would probably have been Cisco,
Nokia, Huawei.

I think the main concern is that SP business is kinda shitty business,
long sales times, low sales volumes, high requirements. But that's
also the side of JNPR that has USP.

What is the future of NPU (Trio) and Pipeline (Paradise/Triton), why
would I, as HP exec, keep them alive? I need JNPR to put QFX in my DC
RFPs, I don't really care about SP markets, and I can realise some
savings by axing chip design and support. I think Trio is the best NPU
on the market, and I think we may have a real risk losing it, and no
mechanism that would guarantee new players surfacing to replace it.

I do wish that JNPR had been more serious about how unsustainable it
is to lose to the dollar, and had tried more to capture markets. I
always suggested why not try Trio-PCI in newegg. Long tail is long,
maybe if you could buy it for 2-3k, there would be a new market of
Linux PCI users who want wire rate programmable features for multiple
ports? Maybe ESXi server integration for various pre-VPC protection
features at wire-rate? I think there might be a lot of potential in
NPU-PCI, perhaps even FAB-PCI, to have more ports than single NPU-PCI.

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