Re: [j-nsp] Thanks for all the fish
> > I am aware of a few major orders of the ACX7024 that Juniper are working > on. Of course, none of it will become materially evidential until the > end of 2024. That said, I think HP will give the box a chance, as there > is a market for it. They might just put a time line on it. > I doubt this deal closes before Q4, and neither party is legally allowed to do anything prior to close under the assumption it will. So nothing really will change near-ish term. On Thu, Jan 11, 2024 at 6:25 AM Mark Tinka via juniper-nsp < juniper-nsp@puck.nether.net> wrote: > > > On 1/11/24 02:56, Chris Kawchuk via juniper-nsp wrote: > > > Shall we start taking bets on what stays, and what goes? > > I'm glad that Rami gets to stay as CEO for the networking side of > things. Good lad, that... > > 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. > > The whole Metro-E industry is currently a balls-up. All vendors seem to > have met at a secret location that served 20-year old wine and agreed > not to pursue any Metro-E platforms built around custom silicon. > > So really, what you are buying from either Cisco, Juniper, Nokia, Arista > or Arrcus will be code maturity. No other differentiator. > > > 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. > > I am aware of a few major orders of the ACX7024 that Juniper are working > on. Of course, none of it will become materially evidential until the > end of 2024. That said, I think HP will give the box a chance, as there > is a market for it. They might just put a time line on it. > > And for once in Juniper's history, they are beginning to take the > Metro-E network a little seriously, although probably a tad later than > they should have. > > 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"?
Richard just reports the news, and at risk of keeping this thread a live, I thought I'd give our real word experiences. I've upgraded both newer "licensed based" mx204s and perpetual pre-sku-change mx204's to 22.4. I can attest regardless I had no problems with BGP or anything else. All of my chassis, licensed or not, claim to be missing licenses based on the output of 'show system license'. For all of my chassis, there are/were no chassis alarm indicating a problem, nor did I receive any syslogs indicating a missing license. So calling the enforcement soft seems to be an understatement; I had to go out of my way to find out JunOS things I'm breaking the rules. We had purchased the activation codes for the licensed based mx204s that I sat on until 22.4, so I went through the Agile licensing portal hoops and applied a license to the ones that "I know" require a license per their new model The whole process makes me wonder if I made a mistake and we're one step away from being locked out of our network. Not a great experience. I will probably follow Richard's advice and ask our SE what's supposed to happen "show system license" wise to my legacy mx204s. -Michael > -Original Message- > From: juniper-nsp On Behalf Of > Richard McGovern via juniper-nsp > Sent: Wednesday, January 10, 2024 4:03 PM > To: EXT - giuli...@wztech.com.br ; Gert Doering > > Cc: juniper-nsp@puck.nether.net > Subject: Re: [j-nsp] Difference in "MX204" and "MX204-HW-BASE"? > > 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
Re: [j-nsp] Difference in "MX204" and "MX204-HW-BASE"?
Hopefully not enforced!! Just FYI, but one of the advantages of Flex SW License scheme is ability to move license from one SN to another. In License Portal you “should” be able to revoke an applied Flex license and then apply that Flex license to another SN. You should then me removing the license from the revoked device. Now as to whether this actually works, especially in all cases, I do not know. 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 From: chiel Date: Thursday, January 11, 2024 at 8:14 AM 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 22:41, Richard McGovern wrote: Hopefully this helps, and explains a little of the history of how MX got to where it is today, and beyond. Thanks for the insight! this helps :) As I only need it for spare I will probably just go for the MX204-HW-BASE and ignore the warning messages if I ever need to use it. Good to know that its not (yet) enforced. ___ 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"?
On 10/01/2024 22:41, Richard McGovern wrote: Hopefully this helps, and explains a little of the history of how MX got to where it is today, and beyond. Thanks for the insight! this helps :) As I only need it for spare I will probably just go for the MX204-HW-BASE and ignore the warning messages if I ever need to use it. Good to know that its not (yet) enforced. ___ 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
On 1/11/24 02:56, Chris Kawchuk via juniper-nsp wrote: Shall we start taking bets on what stays, and what goes? I'm glad that Rami gets to stay as CEO for the networking side of things. Good lad, that... 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. The whole Metro-E industry is currently a balls-up. All vendors seem to have met at a secret location that served 20-year old wine and agreed not to pursue any Metro-E platforms built around custom silicon. So really, what you are buying from either Cisco, Juniper, Nokia, Arista or Arrcus will be code maturity. No other differentiator. 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. I am aware of a few major orders of the ACX7024 that Juniper are working on. Of course, none of it will become materially evidential until the end of 2024. That said, I think HP will give the box a chance, as there is a market for it. They might just put a time line on it. And for once in Juniper's history, they are beginning to take the Metro-E network a little seriously, although probably a tad later than they should have. Mark. ___ juniper-nsp mailing list juniper-nsp@puck.nether.net https://puck.nether.net/mailman/listinfo/juniper-nsp
