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

[Mark Tinka via juniper-nsp]

On 1/10/24 21:30, Aaron Gould via juniper-nsp wrote:
https://newsroom.juniper.net/news/news-details/2024/HPE-to-Acquire-Juniper-Networks-to-Accelerate-AI-Driven-Innovation/ 



Glad to see Rami will be staying on.

Considering Juniper's current market cap of US$9.5 billion, that US$14 
billion price tag is rather hefty.


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

Re: [j-nsp] Difference in "MX204" and "MX204-HW-BASE"?

[Mark Tinka via juniper-nsp]

On 1/10/24 19:50, Richard McGovern via juniper-nsp wrote:


The “difference” is that either SKU above does not contain a [Flex] Feature 
License. Some Feature License, Adv or Prem, at some term (years or perpetual) 
must now be included if you want any MX to do any L3 or above features. So 
basically without some Feature License tied the HW SN via some Flex Feature 
License, it is a good boat anchor!

For information on Flex Licenses go here - 
https://www.juniper.net/documentation/us/en/software/license/juniper-licensing-user-guide/topics/concept/licenses-for-juniper-software.html

This change in how MX and other Juniper products has been driven by Stock 
Analysist and other vendors. “I don’t make the news, I just report it”


I can believe this.

If other vendors are dumping honor-based or perpetual licenses, it would 
be commercially silly to not follow suit.


Kind of like what Broadcom have done since picking up VMware, and 
telling customers to move to subscription-based billing in lieu of 
perpetual licenses.


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

[Chris Kawchuk via juniper-nsp]

Shall we start taking bets on what stays, and what goes? 

Here’s my List:

Stays:
PE/Edge Routing (MX/Trio) - Stays and continues development. Reasons stated 
already in this thread. It’s the Swiss army knife to solve 
$things-you-didn’t-even-know-you-needed-to-do for some future corner case, and 
is a market leader.
P/Core Routing (PTX/Express) - Stays, mainly as it’s also a good border router 
too. Lots of DC people using it for massive eBGP at scale, but don’t need the 
HQoS and Subscriber-y stuff that MX can do. 
DC Switching (QFX/Trident) - Stays - Nice product HPE can sell to enterprise 
customers. QFabric lives again in new forms (I'm looking at you VCF). Cheap and 
cheerful high speed switching doesn’t go out of style.

Questionable:
EX - Does it make sense to have EX and QFX? or roll them into one? Dunno. I 
like them when "i just need a switch there” which doesn’t sound like a Boeing 
747 on takeoff. I’d like it to stay.
SRX - HPE can have a good security story now, but SRX needs an uplift versus 
what competitor’s NGFWs are up to these days (and no, Contrail isn’t the answer)

So — where does that leave ACX (Jericho2/2c+/Qumran)? My suspicions HPE says 
“What is this metro-E eVPN/VPWS MPLS aggregation stuff?". It doesn’t address 
any Enterprise solution for HPE that I can think of that couldn’t be covered by 
QFX/EX. It also is lagging behind Cisco NCS5700/NCS540 in both product 
maturity, and product breadth. i.e. If you want a nice small MPLS/SR capable 
pizza box that various form factors, power draw, faceplates, PFE speed, 
physical depth and size, etc... theres an NCS540 already built that does that. 
Contrast with… ACX7024 and the 7100. Basically 2 form factors from JNPR 
versus.. 12-15 different NCS540 and umpteen NCS5700 models and variants.

Again, ACX was never a competitor to the ASR920 which I know Mr Tinka was very 
fond of. And the NCS540 "is the new ASR920”. There’s some long roads ahead for 
JNPR to wrestle back some of that marketshare.

ACX also did a ‘reboot’ of the product line in the 7000-series when they went 
Jericho, versus ACX5000 which (correct me if I’m wrong) that was 
QFX/Trident/Trident+ based and earlier ACX series which were 
$no-idea-i-didnt-look-very-hard-at-them…. so its almost “a new product” which 
may not have a lot of customer nor market traction; thus easier to kill off. 
Yes — even though previous generations of ACX did exist and likely had some 
customers..somewhere…., I know of absolutely nobody that bought them nor used 
them in anger for a large Metro-E/MPLS/eVPN/SR network role.

I'm happy to be proven wrong on ACX; as I don’t like the idea of handing an 
entire market segment to a single vendor.

My $0.02

- CK.



> On 11 Jan 2024, at 9:15 am, Richard McGovern via juniper-nsp 
>  wrote:
> 
> #1 jewel HPE (Aruba) is interested in is Juniper/MIST AI. MIST AI and ML is 
> also being integrated into many other facets of Juniper, one being Apstra. 
> See this in announcement - 
> https://www.barrons.com/articles/cisco-stock-arista-juniper-hp-enterprise-acquisition-b94d6024
>  
> 
___
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

[Tom Beecher via juniper-nsp]

>
> HPE will turn Juniper just like they turn 3com.
>

3Com's death started almost a decade before HP acquired them. They were
pretty much dead by the time that happened,



On Wed, Jan 10, 2024 at 2:38 PM Alexandre Figueira Guimaraes via
juniper-nsp  wrote:

> HPE will turn Juniper just like they turn 3com.
>
> you know the results.
>
>
>
> att
> Alexandre
>
>
>
>
>
>
> 
> De: juniper-nsp  em nome de Aaron
> Gould via juniper-nsp 
> Enviado: quarta-feira, 10 de janeiro de 2024 16:30
> Para: juniper-nsp@puck.nether.net 
> Assunto: Re: [j-nsp] Thanks for all the fish
>
>
> https://urldefense.com/v3/__https://newsroom.juniper.net/news/news-details/2024/HPE-to-Acquire-Juniper-Networks-to-Accelerate-AI-Driven-Innovation/__;!!M3gv20Gt!cY_tIELb_GnFbX25Rob0JdOOa-DCsw5rdrDXQLZCHc5pbquwHK0zxmd1eBGJkltMjQg9rRZ5_SLSka5e9RqBfwazhmC0uXDs$
>
> an MX with an HP label on it will seem so weird
>
>
> On 1/9/2024 2:55 AM, 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.
> >
> --
> -Aaron
>
> ___
> juniper-nsp mailing list juniper-nsp@puck.nether.net
>
> https://urldefense.com/v3/__https://puck.nether.net/mailman/listinfo/juniper-nsp__;!!M3gv20Gt!cY_tIELb_GnFbX25Rob0JdOOa-DCsw5rdrDXQLZCHc5pbquwHK0zxmd1eBGJkltMjQg9rRZ5_SLSka5e9RqBfwazhuH6LnpG$
> ___
> 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

[Chris Morrow via juniper-nsp]

On Wed, 10 Jan 2024 22:10:09 +,
"Giuliano C. Medalha via juniper-nsp"  wrote:

> JUNIPER has 2 very powerful jewels that don't make any sense for HPe to throw 
> them away.

you know every conpany that's acquired things this sort of thing about 
themselves...
RARELY is it the reality that the other party is also imagining...

> One of them is the JUNOS operating system and now the JUNOS-EVO.
> 
> The other thing is related to the JUNIPER NPUs: TRIO and Express (
> to compete with other vendors - cisco, arista, nokia - and now with
> nvidia )

It may be the case that things go as folk on this list hope (me to, I suppose!)
it may also be that the purchaser here sees something completely different
and that the end result is vastly out of the reality discussed.

good times a-comin'!
___
juniper-nsp mailing list juniper-nsp@puck.nether.net
https://puck.nether.net/mailman/listinfo/juniper-nsp

Re: [j-nsp] Difference in "MX204" and "MX204-HW-BASE"?

[Giuliano C. Medalha via juniper-nsp]

Goodnight

As far as I saw, the MX480 and MPC7 are not in EOL.

However, even if it is, and the customer has an active COR or ND type contract, 
the customer has the right to install recent versions of JUNOS (obviously as 
long as they are supported by the platform), such as 22.

If 22 complains to the customer about license, the ideal would be to have a way 
to generate this HASH by the juniper license portal.

Otherwise, every time a commit is made, a WARNING comes and that is very 
annoying.

The installed base of MX480 and MPC7 with active support is still very high in 
the world.

At.te

Giuliano

From: Catalin Dominte 
Sent: Wednesday, January 10, 2024 7:26 PM
To: Giuliano C. Medalha ; Gert Doering 
; Richard McGovern 
Cc: juniper-nsp@puck.nether.net
Subject: Re: [j-nsp] Difference in "MX204" and "MX204-HW-BASE"?

Good Evening,

>>> For example. If you bought an MX480/MPC7 ago with -IR and -R ... the JUNOS 
>>> 22 will ask you to install the hash of a license to >>>enforce the table's 
>>> software (bgp, gre, etc). However, we still haven't figured out how to 
>>> generate an old MX480 or MX204 license >>> for the new standard that 
>>> JUNIPER is requiring in the JUNOS 22...

>>> I think they forgot about that... somehow... and it will need to be 
>>> resolved.

Unless they EOL the entire lot and therefore the problem is gone. . Computer 
says no .



Catalin Dominte

From: juniper-nsp 
mailto:juniper-nsp-boun...@puck.nether.net>>
 on behalf of Giuliano C. Medalha via juniper-nsp 
mailto:juniper-nsp@puck.nether.net>>
Date: Wednesday, 10 January 2024 at 21:50
To: Gert Doering mailto:g...@greenie.muc.de>>, Richard 
McGovern mailto:rmcgov...@juniper.net>>
Cc: juniper-nsp@puck.nether.net 
mailto:juniper-nsp@puck.nether.net>>
Subject: Re: [j-nsp] Difference in "MX204" and "MX204-HW-BASE"?
Good evening guys, how are you ?

If I can contribute a little.

Looking from a timeline standpoint... the MX204 passed:

- MX204 with -IR and R licenses ( which were perpetual )

- MX204-P-BASE ( Which was the transition box from -IR and -R to Flex License )

- MX204-HW-BASE ( Advanced and Premium Flex Licenses with 3 years or Perpetual )

Now on the JUNOS 22, Juniper starts requesting that the licenses hashes be 
installed in the box. However, from my point of view, the portal for generating 
router licenses is not yet prepared to take an -IR or -R license and generate 
it in the way that version 22 understands.

For example. If you bought an MX480/MPC7 ago with -IR and -R ... the JUNOS 22 
will ask you to install the hash of a license to enforce the table's software 
(bgp, gre, etc). However, we still haven't figured out how to generate an old 
MX480 or MX204 license for the new standard that JUNIPER is requiring in the 
JUNOS 22...

I think they forgot about that... somehow... and it will need to be resolved.

At.te

Giuliano

-Original Message-
From: juniper-nsp 
mailto:juniper-nsp-boun...@puck.nether.net>>
 On Behalf Of Gert Doering via juniper-nsp
Sent: Wednesday, January 10, 2024 6:46 PM
To: Richard McGovern mailto:rmcgov...@juniper.net>>
Cc: juniper-nsp@puck.nether.net
Subject: Re: [j-nsp] Difference in "MX204" and "MX204-HW-BASE"?

Hi,

On Wed, Jan 10, 2024 at 09:41:41PM +, Richard McGovern via juniper-nsp 
wrote:
> Now, unknown to me (they don?t tell SEs any of this info either) there
> could have been ?hard? enforcement added in some newer SW release ? RN
> should point this out (stop laughing please!!!). Juniper internal have
> discussed implementing ?hard? enforcement over the years, and with
> potential change in product management (just happens) that view may
> change. Can?t tell you yah or nah on hard enforcement.

If you do not have enough magenta coloured ink, no BGP for you...

gert
--
Gert Doering - Munich, Germany 
g...@greenie.muc.de

WZTECH is registered trademark of WZTECH NETWORKS.
Copyright © 2023 WZTECH NETWORKS. All Rights Reserved.

IMPORTANTE:
As informações deste e-mail e o conteúdo dos eventuais documentos anexos são 
confidenciais e para conhecimento exclusivo do destinatário. Se o leitor desta 
mensagem não for o seu destinatário, fica desde já notificado de que não poderá 
divulgar, distribuir ou, sob qualquer forma, dar conhecimento a terceiros das 
informações e do conteúdo dos documentos anexos. Neste caso, favor comunicar 
imediatamente o remetente, respondendo este e-mail ou telefonando ao mesmo, e 
em seguida apague-o.

CONFIDENTIALITY NOTICE:
The information transmitted in this email message and any attachments are 
solely for the intended recipient and may contain confidential or privileged 
information. If you are not the intended recipient, any review, transmission, 
dissemination or other use of this information is prohibited. If you have 
received this communication in error, please notify the sender immediately and 
delete the 

Re: [j-nsp] Difference in "MX204" and "MX204-HW-BASE"?

[Catalin Dominte via juniper-nsp]

Good Evening,

>>> For example. If you bought an MX480/MPC7 ago with -IR and -R ... the JUNOS 
>>> 22 will ask you to install the hash of a license to >>>enforce the table's 
>>> software (bgp, gre, etc). However, we still haven't figured out how to 
>>> generate an old MX480 or MX204 license >>> for the new standard that 
>>> JUNIPER is requiring in the JUNOS 22...

>>> I think they forgot about that... somehow... and it will need to be 
>>> resolved.

Unless they EOL the entire lot and therefore the problem is gone. . Computer 
says no .



Catalin Dominte

From: juniper-nsp  on behalf of Giuliano 
C. Medalha via juniper-nsp 
Date: Wednesday, 10 January 2024 at 21:50
To: Gert Doering , Richard McGovern 
Cc: juniper-nsp@puck.nether.net 
Subject: Re: [j-nsp] Difference in "MX204" and "MX204-HW-BASE"?
Good evening guys, how are you ?

If I can contribute a little.

Looking from a timeline standpoint... the MX204 passed:

- MX204 with -IR and R licenses ( which were perpetual )

- MX204-P-BASE ( Which was the transition box from -IR and -R to Flex License )

- MX204-HW-BASE ( Advanced and Premium Flex Licenses with 3 years or Perpetual )

Now on the JUNOS 22, Juniper starts requesting that the licenses hashes be 
installed in the box. However, from my point of view, the portal for generating 
router licenses is not yet prepared to take an -IR or -R license and generate 
it in the way that version 22 understands.

For example. If you bought an MX480/MPC7 ago with -IR and -R ... the JUNOS 22 
will ask you to install the hash of a license to enforce the table's software 
(bgp, gre, etc). However, we still haven't figured out how to generate an old 
MX480 or MX204 license for the new standard that JUNIPER is requiring in the 
JUNOS 22...

I think they forgot about that... somehow... and it will need to be resolved.

At.te

Giuliano

-Original Message-
From: juniper-nsp  On Behalf Of Gert 
Doering via juniper-nsp
Sent: Wednesday, January 10, 2024 6:46 PM
To: Richard McGovern 
Cc: juniper-nsp@puck.nether.net
Subject: Re: [j-nsp] Difference in "MX204" and "MX204-HW-BASE"?

Hi,

On Wed, Jan 10, 2024 at 09:41:41PM +, Richard McGovern via juniper-nsp 
wrote:
> Now, unknown to me (they don?t tell SEs any of this info either) there
> could have been ?hard? enforcement added in some newer SW release ? RN
> should point this out (stop laughing please!!!). Juniper internal have
> discussed implementing ?hard? enforcement over the years, and with
> potential change in product management (just happens) that view may
> change. Can?t tell you yah or nah on hard enforcement.

If you do not have enough magenta coloured ink, no BGP for you...

gert
--
Gert Doering - Munich, Germany g...@greenie.muc.de

WZTECH is registered trademark of WZTECH NETWORKS.
Copyright © 2023 WZTECH NETWORKS. All Rights Reserved.

IMPORTANTE:
As informações deste e-mail e o conteúdo dos eventuais documentos anexos são 
confidenciais e para conhecimento exclusivo do destinatário. Se o leitor desta 
mensagem não for o seu destinatário, fica desde já notificado de que não poderá 
divulgar, distribuir ou, sob qualquer forma, dar conhecimento a terceiros das 
informações e do conteúdo dos documentos anexos. Neste caso, favor comunicar 
imediatamente o remetente, respondendo este e-mail ou telefonando ao mesmo, e 
em seguida apague-o.

CONFIDENTIALITY NOTICE:
The information transmitted in this email message and any attachments are 
solely for the intended recipient and may contain confidential or privileged 
information. If you are not the intended recipient, any review, transmission, 
dissemination or other use of this information is prohibited. If you have 
received this communication in error, please notify the sender immediately and 
delete the material from any computer, including any copies.
___
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

[Giuliano C. Medalha via juniper-nsp]

Yes definitely.

And it doesn't make any sense to just take the first jewel (MIST / ML) and not 
take advantage of the other 2  (JUNOS and NPUs) ... and simply discard them.

Even because there are many large customers in the world who are using the 
"other" 2 jewels.


From: Richard McGovern 
Sent: Wednesday, January 10, 2024 7:16 PM
To: Giuliano C. Medalha ; Alexandre Guimaraes 
; juniper-nsp@puck.nether.net; Aaron Gould 

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

#1 jewel HPE (Aruba) is interested in is Juniper/MIST AI. MIST AI and ML is 
also being integrated into many other facets of Juniper, one being Apstra. See 
this in announcement - 
https://www.barrons.com/articles/cisco-stock-arista-juniper-hp-enterprise-acquisition-b94d6024

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




Juniper Business Use Only
On 1/10/24, 5:10 PM, "Giuliano C. Medalha" 
mailto:giuli...@wztech.com.br>> wrote:
Alexandre,

Goodnight.

JUNIPER has 2 very powerful jewels that don't make any sense for HPe to throw 
them away.

One of them is the JUNOS operating system and now the JUNOS-EVO.

The other thing is related to the JUNIPER NPUs: TRIO and Express ( to compete 
with other vendors - cisco, arista, nokia - and now with nvidia )

The technology of these JUNIPER NPUs is very great. Both shipping and 
manufacturing.  There is the issue today of low energy consumption too.

And there is the entire JUNIPER engineering team that has enormous value.

HPe must have a huge interest in JUNIPER NPUs for High Performance Computing 
(HPC) ... as investments in HPC for AI processing are extremely high today.

And HPe certainly has its eye on this market... being able to supply servers 
with Nvidia's HG100 cards (example) and the entire network part with the 
appropriate NPU to run the necessary communication for AI and ML.

So I don't believe that wasting a huge chance like that, especially in the 
American market, is something they are not thinking about.  Quite the opposite.

Besides 5G and Edge Computing ... and other projects.

At.te

Giuliano


Take a look 


Sharada Yeluri articles:

https://urldefense.com/v3/__https://www.linkedin.com/pulse/gpu-fabrics-genai-workloads-sharada-yeluri-j8ghc?utm_source=share_medium=member_ios_campaign=share_via__;!!NEt6yMaO-gk!HQROn9iGp4UvBkIlPTpyFN3tHCur82IRLhMj2HcS56qjKND36LA46zPvEikfsSpdYFnKJfz3cUTcL6mDjp7THMIoKNxHYZLW$

https://urldefense.com/v3/__https://www.linkedin.com/pulse/chiplets-inevitable-transition-sharada-yeluri?utm_source=share_medium=member_ios_campaign=share_via__;!!NEt6yMaO-gk!HQROn9iGp4UvBkIlPTpyFN3tHCur82IRLhMj2HcS56qjKND36LA46zPvEikfsSpdYFnKJfz3cUTcL6mDjp7THMIoKGpRuQPN$


MIT AI:

https://urldefense.com/v3/__https://people.csail.mit.edu/ghobadi/papers/trio_sigcomm_2022.pdf__;!!NEt6yMaO-gk!HQROn9iGp4UvBkIlPTpyFN3tHCur82IRLhMj2HcS56qjKND36LA46zPvEikfsSpdYFnKJfz3cUTcL6mDjp7THMIoKBhUJIPe$


AKAMAI EDGE:

https://www.juniper.net/us/en/customers/akamai-technologies-case-study.html ( 
JCO400 + MX304 + PTX )



-Original Message-
From: juniper-nsp 
mailto:juniper-nsp-boun...@puck.nether.net>>
 On Behalf Of Alexandre Figueira Guimaraes via juniper-nsp
Sent: Wednesday, January 10, 2024 4:38 PM
To: juniper-nsp@puck.nether.net; Aaron 
Gould mailto:aar...@gvtc.com>>
Subject: Re: [j-nsp] Thanks for all the fish

HPE will turn Juniper just like they turn 3com.

you know the results.



att
Alexandre







De: juniper-nsp 
mailto:juniper-nsp-boun...@puck.nether.net>>
 em nome de Aaron Gould via juniper-nsp 
mailto:juniper-nsp@puck.nether.net>>
Enviado: quarta-feira, 10 de janeiro de 2024 16:30
Para: juniper-nsp@puck.nether.net 
mailto:juniper-nsp@puck.nether.net>>
Assunto: Re: [j-nsp] Thanks for all the fish

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

[Richard McGovern via juniper-nsp]

#1 jewel HPE (Aruba) is interested in is Juniper/MIST AI. MIST AI and ML is 
also being integrated into many other facets of Juniper, one being Apstra. See 
this in announcement - 
https://www.barrons.com/articles/cisco-stock-arista-juniper-hp-enterprise-acquisition-b94d6024

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




Juniper Business Use Only

On 1/10/24, 5:10 PM, "Giuliano C. Medalha"  wrote:
Alexandre,

Goodnight.

JUNIPER has 2 very powerful jewels that don't make any sense for HPe to throw 
them away.

One of them is the JUNOS operating system and now the JUNOS-EVO.

The other thing is related to the JUNIPER NPUs: TRIO and Express ( to compete 
with other vendors - cisco, arista, nokia - and now with nvidia )

The technology of these JUNIPER NPUs is very great. Both shipping and 
manufacturing.  There is the issue today of low energy consumption too.

And there is the entire JUNIPER engineering team that has enormous value.

HPe must have a huge interest in JUNIPER NPUs for High Performance Computing 
(HPC) ... as investments in HPC for AI processing are extremely high today.

And HPe certainly has its eye on this market... being able to supply servers 
with Nvidia's HG100 cards (example) and the entire network part with the 
appropriate NPU to run the necessary communication for AI and ML.

So I don't believe that wasting a huge chance like that, especially in the 
American market, is something they are not thinking about.  Quite the opposite.

Besides 5G and Edge Computing ... and other projects.

At.te

Giuliano


Take a look 


Sharada Yeluri articles:

https://urldefense.com/v3/__https://www.linkedin.com/pulse/gpu-fabrics-genai-workloads-sharada-yeluri-j8ghc?utm_source=share_medium=member_ios_campaign=share_via__;!!NEt6yMaO-gk!HQROn9iGp4UvBkIlPTpyFN3tHCur82IRLhMj2HcS56qjKND36LA46zPvEikfsSpdYFnKJfz3cUTcL6mDjp7THMIoKNxHYZLW$

https://urldefense.com/v3/__https://www.linkedin.com/pulse/chiplets-inevitable-transition-sharada-yeluri?utm_source=share_medium=member_ios_campaign=share_via__;!!NEt6yMaO-gk!HQROn9iGp4UvBkIlPTpyFN3tHCur82IRLhMj2HcS56qjKND36LA46zPvEikfsSpdYFnKJfz3cUTcL6mDjp7THMIoKGpRuQPN$


MIT AI:

https://urldefense.com/v3/__https://people.csail.mit.edu/ghobadi/papers/trio_sigcomm_2022.pdf__;!!NEt6yMaO-gk!HQROn9iGp4UvBkIlPTpyFN3tHCur82IRLhMj2HcS56qjKND36LA46zPvEikfsSpdYFnKJfz3cUTcL6mDjp7THMIoKBhUJIPe$


AKAMAI EDGE:

https://www.juniper.net/us/en/customers/akamai-technologies-case-study.html ( 
JCO400 + MX304 + PTX )



-Original Message-
From: juniper-nsp 
mailto:juniper-nsp-boun...@puck.nether.net>>
 On Behalf Of Alexandre Figueira Guimaraes via juniper-nsp
Sent: Wednesday, January 10, 2024 4:38 PM
To: juniper-nsp@puck.nether.net; Aaron 
Gould mailto:aar...@gvtc.com>>
Subject: Re: [j-nsp] Thanks for all the fish

HPE will turn Juniper just like they turn 3com.

you know the results.



att
Alexandre







De: juniper-nsp 
mailto:juniper-nsp-boun...@puck.nether.net>>
 em nome de Aaron Gould via juniper-nsp 
mailto:juniper-nsp@puck.nether.net>>
Enviado: quarta-feira, 10 de janeiro de 2024 16:30
Para: juniper-nsp@puck.nether.net 
mailto:juniper-nsp@puck.nether.net>>
Assunto: Re: [j-nsp] Thanks for all the fish

https://urldefense.com/v3/__https://newsroom.juniper.net/news/news-details/2024/HPE-to-Acquire-Juniper-Networks-to-Accelerate-AI-Driven-Innovation/__;!!M3gv20Gt!cY_tIELb_GnFbX25Rob0JdOOa-DCsw5rdrDXQLZCHc5pbquwHK0zxmd1eBGJkltMjQg9rRZ5_SLSka5e9RqBfwazhmC0uXDs$

an MX with an HP label on it will seem so weird


On 1/9/2024 2:55 AM, 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

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

[Giuliano C. Medalha via juniper-nsp]

Alexandre,

Goodnight.

JUNIPER has 2 very powerful jewels that don't make any sense for HPe to throw 
them away.

One of them is the JUNOS operating system and now the JUNOS-EVO.

The other thing is related to the JUNIPER NPUs: TRIO and Express ( to compete 
with other vendors - cisco, arista, nokia - and now with nvidia )

The technology of these JUNIPER NPUs is very great. Both shipping and 
manufacturing.  There is the issue today of low energy consumption too.

And there is the entire JUNIPER engineering team that has enormous value.

HPe must have a huge interest in JUNIPER NPUs for High Performance Computing 
(HPC) ... as investments in HPC for AI processing are extremely high today.

And HPe certainly has its eye on this market... being able to supply servers 
with Nvidia's HG100 cards (example) and the entire network part with the 
appropriate NPU to run the necessary communication for AI and ML.

So I don't believe that wasting a huge chance like that, especially in the 
American market, is something they are not thinking about.  Quite the opposite.

Besides 5G and Edge Computing ... and other projects.

At.te

Giuliano


Take a look 


Sharada Yeluri articles:

https://www.linkedin.com/pulse/gpu-fabrics-genai-workloads-sharada-yeluri-j8ghc?utm_source=share_medium=member_ios_campaign=share_via

https://www.linkedin.com/pulse/chiplets-inevitable-transition-sharada-yeluri?utm_source=share_medium=member_ios_campaign=share_via


MIT AI:

https://people.csail.mit.edu/ghobadi/papers/trio_sigcomm_2022.pdf


AKAMAI EDGE:

https://www.juniper.net/us/en/customers/akamai-technologies-case-study.html ( 
JCO400 + MX304 + PTX )



-Original Message-
From: juniper-nsp  On Behalf Of Alexandre 
Figueira Guimaraes via juniper-nsp
Sent: Wednesday, January 10, 2024 4:38 PM
To: juniper-nsp@puck.nether.net; Aaron Gould 
Subject: Re: [j-nsp] Thanks for all the fish

HPE will turn Juniper just like they turn 3com.

you know the results.



att
Alexandre







De: juniper-nsp  em nome de Aaron Gould 
via juniper-nsp 
Enviado: quarta-feira, 10 de janeiro de 2024 16:30
Para: juniper-nsp@puck.nether.net 
Assunto: Re: [j-nsp] Thanks for all the fish

https://urldefense.com/v3/__https://newsroom.juniper.net/news/news-details/2024/HPE-to-Acquire-Juniper-Networks-to-Accelerate-AI-Driven-Innovation/__;!!M3gv20Gt!cY_tIELb_GnFbX25Rob0JdOOa-DCsw5rdrDXQLZCHc5pbquwHK0zxmd1eBGJkltMjQg9rRZ5_SLSka5e9RqBfwazhmC0uXDs$

an MX with an HP label on it will seem so weird


On 1/9/2024 2:55 AM, 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.
>
--
-Aaron

___
juniper-nsp mailing list juniper-nsp@puck.nether.net
https://urldefense.com/v3/__https://puck.nether.net/mailman/listinfo/juniper-nsp__;!!M3gv20Gt!cY_tIELb_GnFbX25Rob0JdOOa-DCsw5rdrDXQLZCHc5pbquwHK0zxmd1eBGJkltMjQg9rRZ5_SLSka5e9RqBfwazhuH6LnpG$
___
juniper-nsp mailing list juniper-nsp@puck.nether.net
https://puck.nether.net/mailman/listinfo/juniper-nsp

WZTECH is registered trademark of WZTECH NETWORKS.

Re: [j-nsp] Difference in "MX204" and "MX204-HW-BASE"?

[Richard McGovern via juniper-nsp]

Agree sort of. The SW should know if model was MX204 or MX204-P-BASE/ 
MX204-HW-BASE. So it should know if need to enforce a license or not. The 
problem is that some MX204-P-BASE were sold as -IR or -R, etc. and some sold 
with Flex – Transition period.

There is no way for SW to know by which method a MX204-P-BASE was sold. So no 
way to know to enforce or not. That is one reason for “soft” enforcement. 
Customer (and Juniper Sales) can then determine which method was used, and get 
the customer a valid perpetual license at $0 so customer is good to go forever.

Now whether this approach is actually occurring, I don’t know. I service my 
customer base like above on an as needed basis.

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




Juniper Business Use Only
From: Giuliano C. Medalha 
Date: Wednesday, January 10, 2024 at 4:49 PM
To: Gert Doering , Richard McGovern 
Cc: juniper-nsp@puck.nether.net 
Subject: RE: [j-nsp] Difference in "MX204" and "MX204-HW-BASE"?
[External Email. Be cautious of content]


Good evening guys, how are you ?

If I can contribute a little.

Looking from a timeline standpoint... the MX204 passed:

- MX204 with -IR and R licenses ( which were perpetual )

- MX204-P-BASE ( Which was the transition box from -IR and -R to Flex License )

- MX204-HW-BASE ( Advanced and Premium Flex Licenses with 3 years or Perpetual )

Now on the JUNOS 22, Juniper starts requesting that the licenses hashes be 
installed in the box. However, from my point of view, the portal for generating 
router licenses is not yet prepared to take an -IR or -R license and generate 
it in the way that version 22 understands.

For example. If you bought an MX480/MPC7 ago with -IR and -R ... the JUNOS 22 
will ask you to install the hash of a license to enforce the table's software 
(bgp, gre, etc). However, we still haven't figured out how to generate an old 
MX480 or MX204 license for the new standard that JUNIPER is requiring in the 
JUNOS 22...

I think they forgot about that... somehow... and it will need to be resolved.

At.te

Giuliano

-Original Message-
From: juniper-nsp  On Behalf Of Gert 
Doering via juniper-nsp
Sent: Wednesday, January 10, 2024 6:46 PM
To: Richard McGovern 
Cc: juniper-nsp@puck.nether.net
Subject: Re: [j-nsp] Difference in "MX204" and "MX204-HW-BASE"?

Hi,

On Wed, Jan 10, 2024 at 09:41:41PM +, Richard McGovern via juniper-nsp 
wrote:
> Now, unknown to me (they don?t tell SEs any of this info either) there
> could have been ?hard? enforcement added in some newer SW release ? RN
> should point this out (stop laughing please!!!). Juniper internal have
> discussed implementing ?hard? enforcement over the years, and with
> potential change in product management (just happens) that view may
> change. Can?t tell you yah or nah on hard enforcement.

If you do not have enough magenta coloured ink, no BGP for you...

gert
--
Gert Doering - Munich, Germany g...@greenie.muc.de

WZTECH is registered trademark of WZTECH NETWORKS.
Copyright © 2023 WZTECH NETWORKS. All Rights Reserved.

IMPORTANTE:
As informações deste e-mail e o conteúdo dos eventuais documentos anexos são 
confidenciais e para conhecimento exclusivo do destinatário. Se o leitor desta 
mensagem não for o seu destinatário, fica desde já notificado de que não poderá 
divulgar, distribuir ou, sob qualquer forma, dar conhecimento a terceiros das 
informações e do conteúdo dos documentos anexos. Neste caso, favor comunicar 
imediatamente o remetente, respondendo este e-mail ou telefonando ao mesmo, e 
em seguida apague-o.

CONFIDENTIALITY NOTICE:
The information transmitted in this email message and any attachments are 
solely for the intended recipient and may contain confidential or privileged 
information. If you are not the intended recipient, any review, transmission, 
dissemination or other use of this information is prohibited. If you have 
received this communication in error, please notify the sender immediately and 
delete the material from any computer, including any copies.
___
juniper-nsp mailing list juniper-nsp@puck.nether.net
https://puck.nether.net/mailman/listinfo/juniper-nsp

Re: [j-nsp] Difference in "MX204" and "MX204-HW-BASE"?

[Giuliano C. Medalha via juniper-nsp]

Good evening guys, how are you ?

If I can contribute a little.

Looking from a timeline standpoint... the MX204 passed:

- MX204 with -IR and R licenses ( which were perpetual )

- MX204-P-BASE ( Which was the transition box from -IR and -R to Flex License )

- MX204-HW-BASE ( Advanced and Premium Flex Licenses with 3 years or Perpetual )

Now on the JUNOS 22, Juniper starts requesting that the licenses hashes be 
installed in the box. However, from my point of view, the portal for generating 
router licenses is not yet prepared to take an -IR or -R license and generate 
it in the way that version 22 understands.

For example. If you bought an MX480/MPC7 ago with -IR and -R ... the JUNOS 22 
will ask you to install the hash of a license to enforce the table's software 
(bgp, gre, etc). However, we still haven't figured out how to generate an old 
MX480 or MX204 license for the new standard that JUNIPER is requiring in the 
JUNOS 22...

I think they forgot about that... somehow... and it will need to be resolved.

At.te

Giuliano

-Original Message-
From: juniper-nsp  On Behalf Of Gert 
Doering via juniper-nsp
Sent: Wednesday, January 10, 2024 6:46 PM
To: Richard McGovern 
Cc: juniper-nsp@puck.nether.net
Subject: Re: [j-nsp] Difference in "MX204" and "MX204-HW-BASE"?

Hi,

On Wed, Jan 10, 2024 at 09:41:41PM +, Richard McGovern via juniper-nsp 
wrote:
> Now, unknown to me (they don?t tell SEs any of this info either) there
> could have been ?hard? enforcement added in some newer SW release ? RN
> should point this out (stop laughing please!!!). Juniper internal have
> discussed implementing ?hard? enforcement over the years, and with
> potential change in product management (just happens) that view may
> change. Can?t tell you yah or nah on hard enforcement.

If you do not have enough magenta coloured ink, no BGP for you...

gert
--
Gert Doering - Munich, Germany g...@greenie.muc.de

WZTECH is registered trademark of WZTECH NETWORKS.
Copyright © 2023 WZTECH NETWORKS. All Rights Reserved.

IMPORTANTE:
As informações deste e-mail e o conteúdo dos eventuais documentos anexos são 
confidenciais e para conhecimento exclusivo do destinatário. Se o leitor desta 
mensagem não for o seu destinatário, fica desde já notificado de que não poderá 
divulgar, distribuir ou, sob qualquer forma, dar conhecimento a terceiros das 
informações e do conteúdo dos documentos anexos. Neste caso, favor comunicar 
imediatamente o remetente, respondendo este e-mail ou telefonando ao mesmo, e 
em seguida apague-o.

CONFIDENTIALITY NOTICE:
The information transmitted in this email message and any attachments are 
solely for the intended recipient and may contain confidential or privileged 
information. If you are not the intended recipient, any review, transmission, 
dissemination or other use of this information is prohibited. If you have 
received this communication in error, please notify the sender immediately and 
delete the material from any computer, including any copies.
___
juniper-nsp mailing list juniper-nsp@puck.nether.net
https://puck.nether.net/mailman/listinfo/juniper-nsp

Re: [j-nsp] Difference in "MX204" and "MX204-HW-BASE"?

[Gert Doering via juniper-nsp]

Hi,

On Wed, Jan 10, 2024 at 09:41:41PM +, Richard McGovern via juniper-nsp 
wrote:
> Now, unknown to me (they don?t tell SEs any of this info either)
> there could have been ?hard? enforcement added in some newer SW
> release ? RN should point this out (stop laughing please!!!). Juniper
> internal have discussed implementing ?hard? enforcement over the
> years, and with potential change in product management (just happens)
> that view may change. Can?t tell you yah or nah on hard enforcement.

If you do not have enough magenta coloured ink, no BGP for you...

gert
-- 
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] Difference in "MX204" and "MX204-HW-BASE"?

[Richard McGovern via juniper-nsp]

Ah, I forgot that point. None of the features should be “hard” enforced, no 
matter what SW release you are running. You should receive many error/warning 
messages regarding using a feature for which you do not have a license – “soft” 
enforcement we call it. So no feature should not be able to be configured or 
used because of lack of a license. If a license is needed for testing, reach 
out to your Juniper SE or go through Partner to get a temp license.

Juniper protects against user using features they did not actually pay for via 
EULA – End User License Agreement - 
https://webdownload.juniper.net/swdl/dl/secure/site/1/record/167857.html?pf=QFX5120-32C

A “MX204” hardware and SKU knew nothing about Flex license. That model was 
pre-Flex. That model had no licenses if my memory is right – full Junos which 
was changed at $10K – very good deal I might add!!. That model (IC bus name) 
thinks differently than model with name MX204-HW-Base or MX204-HWBASE-AC-FS (FS 
= Flex Software maybe). Both of these models know about Flex and the 
requirement match of feature being used and license installed.

Now, unknown to me (they don’t tell SEs any of this info either) there could 
have been “hard” enforcement added in some newer SW release – RN should point 
this out (stop laughing please!!!). Juniper internal have discussed 
implementing “hard” enforcement over the years, and with potential change in 
product management (just happens) that view may change. Can’t tell you yah or 
nah on hard enforcement.

Hopefully this helps, and explains a little of the history of how MX got to 
where it is today, and beyond.

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
From: chiel 
Date: Wednesday, January 10, 2024 at 4:13 PM
To: Richard McGovern , Tom Beecher 
Cc: juniper-nsp@puck.nether.net 
Subject: Re: [j-nsp] Difference in "MX204" and "MX204-HW-BASE"?
[External Email. Be cautious of content]


On 10/01/2024 18:50, Richard McGovern wrote:
> So basically without some Feature License tied the HW SN via some Flex
> Feature License, it is a good boat anchor!

So why does the MX204 I currently have and doesn't have any license
installed on it is running BGP/OSPF without any problems on version
22.3R3.8? If I lookup the SN on the Juniper website [1] I see "MX204".
If I lookup other SN from "MX204-HW-BASE" I do see "MX204-HW-BASE"
instead of "MX204".

So I guess "MX204" doesn't enforce the license?

I guess another option is not to go above version 22.2R1?

[1] https://entitlementsearch.juniper.net/

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

Re: [j-nsp] Difference in "MX204" and "MX204-HW-BASE"?

[chiel via juniper-nsp]

On 10/01/2024 18:50, Richard McGovern wrote:

So basically without some Feature License tied the HW SN via some Flex
Feature License, it is a good boat anchor!


So why does the MX204 I currently have and doesn't have any license
installed on it is running BGP/OSPF without any problems on version
22.3R3.8? If I lookup the SN on the Juniper website [1] I see "MX204".
If I lookup other SN from "MX204-HW-BASE" I do see "MX204-HW-BASE"
instead of "MX204".

So I guess "MX204" doesn't enforce the license?

I guess another option is not to go above version 22.2R1?

[1] https://entitlementsearch.juniper.net/


___
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

[Alexandre Figueira Guimaraes via juniper-nsp]

HPE will turn Juniper just like they turn 3com.

you know the results.



att
Alexandre







De: juniper-nsp  em nome de Aaron Gould 
via juniper-nsp 
Enviado: quarta-feira, 10 de janeiro de 2024 16:30
Para: juniper-nsp@puck.nether.net 
Assunto: Re: [j-nsp] Thanks for all the fish

https://urldefense.com/v3/__https://newsroom.juniper.net/news/news-details/2024/HPE-to-Acquire-Juniper-Networks-to-Accelerate-AI-Driven-Innovation/__;!!M3gv20Gt!cY_tIELb_GnFbX25Rob0JdOOa-DCsw5rdrDXQLZCHc5pbquwHK0zxmd1eBGJkltMjQg9rRZ5_SLSka5e9RqBfwazhmC0uXDs$

an MX with an HP label on it will seem so weird


On 1/9/2024 2:55 AM, 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.
>
--
-Aaron

___
juniper-nsp mailing list juniper-nsp@puck.nether.net
https://urldefense.com/v3/__https://puck.nether.net/mailman/listinfo/juniper-nsp__;!!M3gv20Gt!cY_tIELb_GnFbX25Rob0JdOOa-DCsw5rdrDXQLZCHc5pbquwHK0zxmd1eBGJkltMjQg9rRZ5_SLSka5e9RqBfwazhuH6LnpG$
___
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

[Aaron Gould via juniper-nsp]

https://newsroom.juniper.net/news/news-details/2024/HPE-to-Acquire-Juniper-Networks-to-Accelerate-AI-Driven-Innovation/

an MX with an HP label on it will seem so weird


On 1/9/2024 2:55 AM, 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.


--
-Aaron

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

Re: [j-nsp] Difference in "MX204" and "MX204-HW-BASE"?

[Richard McGovern via juniper-nsp]

Confusing, yes! As chiel wrote, these are just ordering SKU. Neither should be 
used for new orders. Instead “MX204-HWBASE-AC-FS” should be used, but 
“MX204-HW-BASE” is still allowed for legacy ordering. These are both priced the 
same, and basically provide exact same HW parts.

The “difference” is that either SKU above does not contain a [Flex] Feature 
License. Some Feature License, Adv or Prem, at some term (years or perpetual) 
must now be included if you want any MX to do any L3 or above features. So 
basically without some Feature License tied the HW SN via some Flex Feature 
License, it is a good boat anchor!

For information on Flex Licenses go here - 
https://www.juniper.net/documentation/us/en/software/license/juniper-licensing-user-guide/topics/concept/licenses-for-juniper-software.html

This change in how MX and other Juniper products has been driven by Stock 
Analysist and other vendors. “I don’t make the news, I just report it”

For any questions, reach out to either your Juniper Partner or Juniper Account 
team.

FYI Only. 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 1/10/24, 10:43 AM, "Tom Beecher"  wrote:
>
> Is there a difference between "MX204" and "MX204-HW-BASE"?
>

Strictly speaking they are just different SKUs, not different models.

MX204 : Chassis + Fan trays + PEMs
MX204-HW-BASE : Base MX204 chassis PLUS perpetual Junos software license

AFAIK , code that has enforcement is limited to specific scaling or more
advanced features, but outside of that, base things just work. Don't take
that as gospel though.

On Wed, Jan 10, 2024 at 8:19 AM chiel via juniper-nsp <
juniper-nsp@puck.nether.net> wrote:

> Is there a difference between "MX204" and "MX204-HW-BASE"?
>
> I thought the "MX204" has honored based license, which isn't sold
> anymore. Where the "MX204-HW-BASE" (also end of sale but still widely
> available) enforces the license after version 22.2R1 for BGP. Is this
> assumption correct?
>
> If there is indeed this difference how can I distinguish these two
> platforms from the CLI?
>
> I have a MX204 with version 22.3R3.8 without a license installed on it
> and its doing BGP just fine. So I guess I have the older MX204 model?
>
> I'm asking as I'm looking for a spare (refurb) unit for my current router.
>
> admin@router> show system license
> License usage:
>   Licenses LicensesLicenses
>Feature  Feature Feature
>Feature name   usedinstalled  needed Expiry
>scale-subscriber  0   10 0permanent
>scale-l2tp0 1000 0permanent
>bgp   10 1invalid
>l3static  10 1invalid
>ospf  10 1invalid
>
> Licenses installed: none
>
>
> admin@router> show chassis hardware
> Hardware inventory:
> Item Version  Part number  Serial number Description
> ChassisX JNP204 [MX204]
>
>
>
>
>
> ___
> juniper-nsp mailing list 
> juniper-nsp@puck.nether.net
> https://urldefense.com/v3/__https://puck.nether.net/mailman/listinfo/juniper-nsp__;!!NEt6yMaO-gk!HM7gEF_z7P4gJFLCXZHpeRSYZS1CilX2JR5jkx3QzaipAcvbCUR0ST_5k7ofKmP_QjyeiPn4zEkATeJtAPcPNDDDEeJKigAR$
>


___
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

[Mark Tinka via juniper-nsp]

On 1/10/24 18:22, Tom Beecher wrote:



I wouldn't necessarily agree that was the wrong *technical* decision. 
Unfortunately, it was a perfect scenario to be exploited for the 
MBA-ification of everything that has greatly expanded in the past decade.


I agree.

Kind of like "not making a mistake of it, but being wrong at the same 
time", if you know what I mean :-).


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

[Tom Beecher via juniper-nsp]

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

I wouldn't necessarily agree that was the wrong *technical* decision.
Unfortunately, it was a perfect scenario to be exploited for the
MBA-ification of everything that has greatly expanded in the past decade.

On Wed, Jan 10, 2024 at 2:24 AM Mark Tinka via juniper-nsp <
juniper-nsp@puck.nether.net> wrote:

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

Re: [j-nsp] Difference in "MX204" and "MX204-HW-BASE"?

[Chriztoffer Hansen via juniper-nsp]

On Wed, 10 Jan 2024 at 14:18, chiel via juniper-nsp
 wrote:
>
> Is there a difference between "MX204" and "MX204-HW-BASE"?
>
> I thought the "MX204" has honored based license, which isn't sold
> anymore. Where the "MX204-HW-BASE" (also end of sale but still widely
> available) enforces the license after version 22.2R1 for BGP. Is this
> assumption correct?
>
> If there is indeed this difference how can I distinguish these two
> platforms from the CLI?
>
> I have a MX204 with version 22.3R3.8 without a license installed on it
> and its doing BGP just fine. So I guess I have the older MX204 model?

Last I heard back from a contact at VAR we use at $dayjob was to
downgrade to <= 22.1R2-S1 (H1/2023). I.e. 22.2 and above will
enforce the new license schema. No clarification have had been
received what Juniper intends to do concerning MX204 owners
with the "old" perpetual license. Wishing to upgrade to newer
22.2 or 22.4 releases.

If you have a support contract with them. I recommend estacalting
the question with them.

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

Re: [j-nsp] Difference in "MX204" and "MX204-HW-BASE"?

[Tom Beecher via juniper-nsp]

>
> Is there a difference between "MX204" and "MX204-HW-BASE"?
>

Strictly speaking they are just different SKUs, not different models.

MX204 : Chassis + Fan trays + PEMs
MX204-HW-BASE : Base MX204 chassis PLUS perpetual Junos software license

AFAIK , code that has enforcement is limited to specific scaling or more
advanced features, but outside of that, base things just work. Don't take
that as gospel though.

On Wed, Jan 10, 2024 at 8:19 AM chiel via juniper-nsp <
juniper-nsp@puck.nether.net> wrote:

> Is there a difference between "MX204" and "MX204-HW-BASE"?
>
> I thought the "MX204" has honored based license, which isn't sold
> anymore. Where the "MX204-HW-BASE" (also end of sale but still widely
> available) enforces the license after version 22.2R1 for BGP. Is this
> assumption correct?
>
> If there is indeed this difference how can I distinguish these two
> platforms from the CLI?
>
> I have a MX204 with version 22.3R3.8 without a license installed on it
> and its doing BGP just fine. So I guess I have the older MX204 model?
>
> I'm asking as I'm looking for a spare (refurb) unit for my current router.
>
> admin@router> show system license
> License usage:
>   Licenses LicensesLicenses
>Feature  Feature Feature
>Feature name   usedinstalled  needed Expiry
>scale-subscriber  0   10 0permanent
>scale-l2tp0 1000 0permanent
>bgp   10 1invalid
>l3static  10 1invalid
>ospf  10 1invalid
>
> Licenses installed: none
>
>
> admin@router> show chassis hardware
> Hardware inventory:
> Item Version  Part number  Serial number Description
> ChassisX JNP204 [MX204]
>
>
>
>
>
> ___
> 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

[j-nsp] Difference in "MX204" and "MX204-HW-BASE"?

[chiel via juniper-nsp]

Is there a difference between "MX204" and "MX204-HW-BASE"?

I thought the "MX204" has honored based license, which isn't sold 
anymore. Where the "MX204-HW-BASE" (also end of sale but still widely 
available) enforces the license after version 22.2R1 for BGP. Is this 
assumption correct?


If there is indeed this difference how can I distinguish these two 
platforms from the CLI?


I have a MX204 with version 22.3R3.8 without a license installed on it 
and its doing BGP just fine. So I guess I have the older MX204 model?


I'm asking as I'm looking for a spare (refurb) unit for my current router.

admin@router> show system license
License usage:
 Licenses Licenses    Licenses
  Feature  Feature Feature
  Feature name   used    installed  needed Expiry
  scale-subscriber  0   10 0    permanent
  scale-l2tp    0 1000 0    permanent
  bgp   1    0 1    invalid
  l3static  1    0 1    invalid
  ospf  1    0 1    invalid

Licenses installed: none


admin@router> show chassis hardware
Hardware inventory:
Item Version  Part number  Serial number Description
Chassis    X JNP204 [MX204]





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