Re: [j-nsp] Juniper MX104
Hi Saku… I hope it really is - but based on the 16k number on MX80 becoming 4k realistically and with only minimal code changes implemented on MX104 vs MX80 I am not optimistic at this point. I really hope to be proven wrong though :) Paul On Nov 14, 2013, at 7:22 AM, Saku Ytti wrote: > On (2013-11-14 06:51 -0500), Paul Stewart wrote: > >> The MX104 most likely won’t be able to handle any more subscribers than 4k >> neither - but have not seen any POC”s or deployments yet on that hardware. > > I'm bit more optimistic, as it has double the DRAM and somewhat faster PPC > CPU, scale should be somewhat better. > > -- > ++ytti > ___ > 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 MX104
On (2013-11-14 06:51 -0500), Paul Stewart wrote: > The MX104 most likely won’t be able to handle any more subscribers than 4k > neither - but have not seen any POC”s or deployments yet on that hardware. I'm bit more optimistic, as it has double the DRAM and somewhat faster PPC CPU, scale should be somewhat better. -- ++ytti ___ juniper-nsp mailing list juniper-nsp@puck.nether.net https://puck.nether.net/mailman/listinfo/juniper-nsp
Re: [j-nsp] Juniper MX104
We have pushed MX80 very hard with PPPOE and found the 4k number to be realistic. Of course it depends on what other features you are turning on as well. I worked with Juniper team to perform POC’s and load testing with “real life environments” and at the end of the testing (and based on what I see with several of them deployed at customers) the 4k number is “safe”. The MX104 most likely won’t be able to handle any more subscribers than 4k neither - but have not seen any POC”s or deployments yet on that hardware. Paul On Nov 13, 2013, at 1:46 AM, Christopher E. Brown wrote: > > Scaling on the MX80 is supposed to be 16,000 per chassis, 8,000 per MIC > and 4,000 per PIC and a 8,000 limit on PPPoE sessions. > > In order to max out you need 2 MICs loaded with at least 1 port per PIC > active for subscriber term at up to 4k per. > > > Also, vlan units and PPPoE units both count as a sub... So if doing uniq > stacked tag combo per sub w/ PPPoE you are using a unit at both the vlan > and pppoe level per sub and when you hit the 8k limit you are also out > of interfaces. > > I have not personally seen a MX80 with that many active subs yet, will > have to see if things run out of juice before the hard limits are reached. > > On 11/12/13 7:52 PM, Skeeve Stevens wrote: >> Does anyone know how many users the MX104 will be able to handle though? >> >> The 4000 user limit on the MX80 was quite low. >> >> Does the MX104 have the services port on the back like the MX80? I'm >> waiting for the CGN Services card which was supposed to be released around >> now. >> >> >> ...Skeeve >> >> *Skeeve Stevens - *eintellego Networks Pty Ltd >> ske...@eintellegonetworks.com ; www.eintellegonetworks.com >> >> Phone: 1300 239 038; Cell +61 (0)414 753 383 ; skype://skeeve >> >> facebook.com/eintellegonetworks ; <http://twitter.com/networkceoau> >> linkedin.com/in/skeeve >> >> twitter.com/theispguy ; blog: www.theispguy.com >> >> >> The Experts Who The Experts Call >> Juniper - Cisco - Cloud >> >> >> On Wed, Nov 13, 2013 at 3:46 PM, Ben Dale wrote: >> >>> That and I think a lot of the BRAS "migration" functionality (LNS/LAC etc) >>> was late to the party after being told it wasn't going to happen for >>> anything lower than the 240. >>> >>> On 13 Nov 2013, at 12:51 pm, Bill Blackford wrote: >>> >>>> My personal feeling is the MX80 wasn't widely adopted as a lower density >>>> subscriber box given the lack of redundant REs. The MX104 may find it's >>>> niche as a BRAS. >>>> >>>> >>>> >>>> >>>> On Tue, Nov 12, 2013 at 5:25 PM, Eric Van Tol >>> wrote: >>>> >>>>> One thing to keep in mind about these boxes is that, like the >>>>> MX5/10/40/80, the built-in 10G ports do not do hierarchical QoS >>> (per-unit >>>>> scheduling). I'm confused as to why this is, considering they are >>>>> Trio-based routers, but I digress. I personally don't think that the >>>>> astronomical cost to enable the 10G ports on all the low-end MX routers >>> is >>>>> worth it, considering they can't even do per-unit scheduling. >>>>> >>>>> -evt >>>>> >>>>>> -Original Message- >>>>>> From: juniper-nsp [mailto:juniper-nsp-boun...@puck.nether.net] On >>>>> Behalf Of >>>>>> joel jaeggli >>>>>> Sent: Tuesday, November 12, 2013 4:00 PM >>>>>> To: Saku Ytti >>>>>> Cc: juniper-nsp@puck.nether.net >>>>>> Subject: Re: [j-nsp] Juniper MX104 >>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>>> On Nov 12, 2013, at 12:46 PM, Saku Ytti wrote: >>>>>> >>>>>>> On (2013-11-12 20:14 +), Tom Storey wrote: >>>>>>> >>>>>>>> Why so much just to enable some ports? How do they come up with that >>>>>>>> kind of price? Pluck it out of thin air? >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> The hardware has been paid for, and I know thats only list pricing, >>>>>>>> but it still seems ridiculous. >>>>>>> >>>>>>> The question might have been rhetoric. But I'll bite. >>>>>>> >>>>>>> The BOM on these boxes is nothing, I'm guessing less than 1kUSD.
Re: [j-nsp] Juniper MX104
RRP, AU$ MS-MIC-16G MULTI SERVICE -MIC WITH 16G FOR MX $12,903.23 MS-MPC-128G MULTI SERVICE - MPC WITH 128G FOR MX$112,903.23 ...Skeeve *Skeeve Stevens - *eintellego Networks Pty Ltd ske...@eintellegonetworks.com ; www.eintellegonetworks.com Phone: 1300 239 038; Cell +61 (0)414 753 383 ; skype://skeeve facebook.com/eintellegonetworks ; <http://twitter.com/networkceoau> linkedin.com/in/skeeve twitter.com/theispguy ; blog: www.theispguy.com The Experts Who The Experts Call Juniper - Cisco - Cloud On Wed, Nov 13, 2013 at 4:13 PM, Luca Salvatore wrote: > Anyone have have a ball park figure of what the MS-MIC will cost? > > > On Wed, Nov 13, 2013 at 4:04 PM, Ben Dale wrote: > > > MS-MIC is out for the MX5-80: > > > > http://www.juniper.net/us/en/local/pdf/datasheets/1000454-en.pdf > > > > doesn't look like there isn't a services port on the back of the 104 > > though: > > > > > > > http://www.juniper.net/shared/img/products/mx-series/mx104/mx104-rear-high.jpg > > > > maybe you can use one of the front slots? > > > > On 13 Nov 2013, at 2:52 pm, Skeeve Stevens < > > skeeve+juniper...@eintellegonetworks.com> wrote: > > > > > Does anyone know how many users the MX104 will be able to handle > though? > > > > > > The 4000 user limit on the MX80 was quite low. > > > > > > Does the MX104 have the services port on the back like the MX80? I'm > > waiting for the CGN Services card which was supposed to be released > around > > now. > > > > > > > > > ...Skeeve > > > > > > Skeeve Stevens - eintellego Networks Pty Ltd > > > ske...@eintellegonetworks.com ; www.eintellegonetworks.com > > > Phone: 1300 239 038; Cell +61 (0)414 753 383 ; skype://skeeve > > > facebook.com/eintellegonetworks ; linkedin.com/in/skeeve > > > twitter.com/theispguy ; blog: www.theispguy.com > > > > > > The Experts Who The Experts Call > > > Juniper - Cisco - Cloud > > > > > > > > > On Wed, Nov 13, 2013 at 3:46 PM, Ben Dale > wrote: > > > That and I think a lot of the BRAS "migration" functionality (LNS/LAC > > etc) was late to the party after being told it wasn't going to happen for > > anything lower than the 240. > > > > > > On 13 Nov 2013, at 12:51 pm, Bill Blackford > > wrote: > > > > > > > My personal feeling is the MX80 wasn't widely adopted as a lower > > density > > > > subscriber box given the lack of redundant REs. The MX104 may find > it's > > > > niche as a BRAS. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > On Tue, Nov 12, 2013 at 5:25 PM, Eric Van Tol > > wrote: > > > > > > > >> One thing to keep in mind about these boxes is that, like the > > > >> MX5/10/40/80, the built-in 10G ports do not do hierarchical QoS > > (per-unit > > > >> scheduling). I'm confused as to why this is, considering they are > > > >> Trio-based routers, but I digress. I personally don't think that > the > > > >> astronomical cost to enable the 10G ports on all the low-end MX > > routers is > > > >> worth it, considering they can't even do per-unit scheduling. > > > >> > > > >> -evt > > > >> > > > >>> -Original Message- > > > >>> From: juniper-nsp [mailto:juniper-nsp-boun...@puck.nether.net] On > > > >> Behalf Of > > > >>> joel jaeggli > > > >>> Sent: Tuesday, November 12, 2013 4:00 PM > > > >>> To: Saku Ytti > > > >>> Cc: juniper-nsp@puck.nether.net > > > >>> Subject: Re: [j-nsp] Juniper MX104 > > > >>> > > > >>> > > > >>> On Nov 12, 2013, at 12:46 PM, Saku Ytti wrote: > > > >>> > > > >>>> On (2013-11-12 20:14 +), Tom Storey wrote: > > > >>>> > > > >>>>> Why so much just to enable some ports? How do they come up with > > that > > > >>>>> kind of price? Pluck it out of thin air? > > > >>>>> > > > >>>>> The hardware has been paid for, and I know thats only list > pricing, > > > >>>>> but it still seems ridiculous. > > > >>>> > > > >>>> The question might have been rhetoric. But I'll bite.
Re: [j-nsp] Juniper MX104
On (2013-11-12 20:25 -0500), Eric Van Tol wrote: > One thing to keep in mind about these boxes is that, like the MX5/10/40/80, > the built-in 10G ports do not do hierarchical QoS (per-unit scheduling). I'm > confused as to why this is, considering they are Trio-based routers, but I > digress. I personally don't think that the astronomical cost to enable the > 10G ports on all the low-end MX routers is worth it, considering they can't > even do per-unit scheduling. It is annoying. As far as I know there is absolutely no technical reason why the chassis ports couldn't use QX. Only reason I can think of why they did that was to avoid grossly oversubscribing QX chip. QX was dimensioned for MPC use-case, where you have 40G WAN and 40G fabric, so 40G was absolute maximum you'd need. With MX80 and MX104, ports sit where fabric should be, so you have doubled your demand for QX capacity. QX performance is somewhere between 20Gbps (small packets) to 38Gbps (large packets). And as far as I know this gets halved if you enable ingress and egress shaping, so you might be looking as poor performance as 10Gbps. So maybe some PM thought it would be giving too much rope to customers to allow enabling it on 8x10GE ports? -- ++ytti ___ juniper-nsp mailing list juniper-nsp@puck.nether.net https://puck.nether.net/mailman/listinfo/juniper-nsp
Re: [j-nsp] Juniper MX104
Scaling on the MX80 is supposed to be 16,000 per chassis, 8,000 per MIC and 4,000 per PIC and a 8,000 limit on PPPoE sessions. In order to max out you need 2 MICs loaded with at least 1 port per PIC active for subscriber term at up to 4k per. Also, vlan units and PPPoE units both count as a sub... So if doing uniq stacked tag combo per sub w/ PPPoE you are using a unit at both the vlan and pppoe level per sub and when you hit the 8k limit you are also out of interfaces. I have not personally seen a MX80 with that many active subs yet, will have to see if things run out of juice before the hard limits are reached. On 11/12/13 7:52 PM, Skeeve Stevens wrote: > Does anyone know how many users the MX104 will be able to handle though? > > The 4000 user limit on the MX80 was quite low. > > Does the MX104 have the services port on the back like the MX80? I'm > waiting for the CGN Services card which was supposed to be released around > now. > > > ...Skeeve > > *Skeeve Stevens - *eintellego Networks Pty Ltd > ske...@eintellegonetworks.com ; www.eintellegonetworks.com > > Phone: 1300 239 038; Cell +61 (0)414 753 383 ; skype://skeeve > > facebook.com/eintellegonetworks ; <http://twitter.com/networkceoau> > linkedin.com/in/skeeve > > twitter.com/theispguy ; blog: www.theispguy.com > > > The Experts Who The Experts Call > Juniper - Cisco - Cloud > > > On Wed, Nov 13, 2013 at 3:46 PM, Ben Dale wrote: > >> That and I think a lot of the BRAS "migration" functionality (LNS/LAC etc) >> was late to the party after being told it wasn't going to happen for >> anything lower than the 240. >> >> On 13 Nov 2013, at 12:51 pm, Bill Blackford wrote: >> >>> My personal feeling is the MX80 wasn't widely adopted as a lower density >>> subscriber box given the lack of redundant REs. The MX104 may find it's >>> niche as a BRAS. >>> >>> >>> >>> >>> On Tue, Nov 12, 2013 at 5:25 PM, Eric Van Tol >> wrote: >>> >>>> One thing to keep in mind about these boxes is that, like the >>>> MX5/10/40/80, the built-in 10G ports do not do hierarchical QoS >> (per-unit >>>> scheduling). I'm confused as to why this is, considering they are >>>> Trio-based routers, but I digress. I personally don't think that the >>>> astronomical cost to enable the 10G ports on all the low-end MX routers >> is >>>> worth it, considering they can't even do per-unit scheduling. >>>> >>>> -evt >>>> >>>>> -Original Message- >>>>> From: juniper-nsp [mailto:juniper-nsp-boun...@puck.nether.net] On >>>> Behalf Of >>>>> joel jaeggli >>>>> Sent: Tuesday, November 12, 2013 4:00 PM >>>>> To: Saku Ytti >>>>> Cc: juniper-nsp@puck.nether.net >>>>> Subject: Re: [j-nsp] Juniper MX104 >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> On Nov 12, 2013, at 12:46 PM, Saku Ytti wrote: >>>>> >>>>>> On (2013-11-12 20:14 +), Tom Storey wrote: >>>>>> >>>>>>> Why so much just to enable some ports? How do they come up with that >>>>>>> kind of price? Pluck it out of thin air? >>>>>>> >>>>>>> The hardware has been paid for, and I know thats only list pricing, >>>>>>> but it still seems ridiculous. >>>>>> >>>>>> The question might have been rhetoric. But I'll bite. >>>>>> >>>>>> The BOM on these boxes is nothing, I'm guessing less than 1kUSD. But >>>> the >>>>>> volume you can sell them also is very very small, so the margins need >>>> to >>>>> be >>>>>> very high to be able to design and support them. >>>>>> Licensing allows you to sell to larger group of people, people who >>>>> normally >>>>>> would buy smaller/inferior box, now can afford it, which in turn >>>> allows >>>>> you >>>>>> to reduce your margins, making you more competitive. >>>>>> >>>>>> I actually like it. I wish vendors like Agilent/Ixia, Spirent would >>>> sell >>>>>> test-kit with some sort of 'per hours used' license. Lot of SPs have >>>> need >>>>> for >>>>>> proper testing kit, but only will need them very irregularly. And >>>> renting >>>>&
Re: [j-nsp] Juniper MX104
The datasheet for the MX-104 ( http://www.juniper.net/us/en/local/pdf/datasheets/1000446-en.pdf ) has the MIC listed: MS-MIC-16G Multiservices MIC with 16GB of memory for the MX5, MX10, MX40, MX80 and MX104 as well as Type 1, Type 2, Type 3 and Type 4 MPCs for the MX240, MX480, MX960, MX2010 and MX2020. supports separately licensed Junos Address Aware (CGNAT); Junos Traffic vision (flow monitoring) Junos vPN Site Secure (IPsec) and Junos Network Secure (Stateful Firewall) No mention of MPC anywhere. On 13.11.2013 16:33, Skeeve Stevens wrote: Isn't that using the front MIC slot though? The rear 'Services Slot' is an MPC slot isn't it? Based on the following: MS-MIC 16G - MS-MIC with 16 GB of memory provides 9GB of service throughput, occupies single MIC slot on MX5, MX10, MX40, and MX80 3D Universal Edge Routers, as well as on the MPC1, MPC2, and MPC3 cards for the MX2020, MX2010, MX960, MX480, and MX240 3D Universal Edge Router. MS-MPC-128 - MS-MPC with 128 GB of memory (32 GB per NPU), provides 60Gbps of service throughput, occupies a single slot in MX2020, MX2010, MX960, MX480, and MX240 3D Universal Edge Routers The rear picture of the MX80 at http://www.juniper.net/shared/img/products/mx-series/mx80/mx80-rear-high.jpg Says "MPC 0" and "MIC 1" in smaller writing under it. From front right slot is also called "1/MIC 1" I think we need further clarification. ...Skeeve *Skeeve Stevens - *eintellego Networks Pty Ltd ske...@eintellegonetworks.com ; www.eintellegonetworks.com Phone: 1300 239 038; Cell +61 (0)414 753 383 ; skype://skeeve facebook.com/eintellegonetworks ; <http://twitter.com/networkceoau> linkedin.com/in/skeeve twitter.com/theispguy ; blog: www.theispguy.com The Experts Who The Experts Call Juniper - Cisco - Cloud On Wed, Nov 13, 2013 at 4:04 PM, Ben Dale wrote: MS-MIC is out for the MX5-80: http://www.juniper.net/us/en/local/pdf/datasheets/1000454-en.pdf doesn't look like there isn't a services port on the back of the 104 though: http://www.juniper.net/shared/img/products/mx-series/mx104/mx104-rear-high.jpg maybe you can use one of the front slots? On 13 Nov 2013, at 2:52 pm, Skeeve Stevens < skeeve+juniper...@eintellegonetworks.com> wrote: > Does anyone know how many users the MX104 will be able to handle though? > > The 4000 user limit on the MX80 was quite low. > > Does the MX104 have the services port on the back like the MX80? I'm waiting for the CGN Services card which was supposed to be released around now. > > > ...Skeeve > > Skeeve Stevens - eintellego Networks Pty Ltd > ske...@eintellegonetworks.com ; www.eintellegonetworks.com > Phone: 1300 239 038; Cell +61 (0)414 753 383 ; skype://skeeve > facebook.com/eintellegonetworks ; linkedin.com/in/skeeve > twitter.com/theispguy ; blog: www.theispguy.com > > The Experts Who The Experts Call > Juniper - Cisco - Cloud > > > On Wed, Nov 13, 2013 at 3:46 PM, Ben Dale wrote: > That and I think a lot of the BRAS "migration" functionality (LNS/LAC etc) was late to the party after being told it wasn't going to happen for anything lower than the 240. > > On 13 Nov 2013, at 12:51 pm, Bill Blackford wrote: > > > My personal feeling is the MX80 wasn't widely adopted as a lower density > > subscriber box given the lack of redundant REs. The MX104 may find it's > > niche as a BRAS. > > > > > > > > > > On Tue, Nov 12, 2013 at 5:25 PM, Eric Van Tol wrote: > > > >> One thing to keep in mind about these boxes is that, like the > >> MX5/10/40/80, the built-in 10G ports do not do hierarchical QoS (per-unit > >> scheduling). I'm confused as to why this is, considering they are > >> Trio-based routers, but I digress. I personally don't think that the > >> astronomical cost to enable the 10G ports on all the low-end MX routers is > >> worth it, considering they can't even do per-unit scheduling. > >> > >> -evt > >> > >>> -Original Message- > >>> From: juniper-nsp [mailto:juniper-nsp-boun...@puck.nether.net] On > >> Behalf Of > >>> joel jaeggli > >>> Sent: Tuesday, November 12, 2013 4:00 PM > >>> To: Saku Ytti > >>> Cc: juniper-nsp@puck.nether.net > >>> Subject: Re: [j-nsp] Juniper MX104 > >>> > >>> > >>> On Nov 12, 2013, at 12:46 PM, Saku Ytti wrote: > >>> > >>>> On (2013-11-12 20:14 +), Tom Storey wrote: > >>>> > >>>>> Why so much just to enable some ports? How do they come up with that > >>>>> kind of price? Pluck it out of thin air? > >>&g
Re: [j-nsp] Juniper MX104
Yeah, my take on that is that MPC0 is pretty much anything built-in on the MX5/80 - eg: the front 10G ports are xe-0/0/0 My guess is that the rear slot is just another MIC slot (slot 1) MPC 0 so something like sp-0/1/0 or whatever designation gets used. The front MIC slots are ge-1/0/0-19 and ge-1/1/0-19 etc. On 13 Nov 2013, at 3:33 pm, Skeeve Stevens wrote: > Isn't that using the front MIC slot though? > > The rear 'Services Slot' is an MPC slot isn't it? > > Based on the following: > > MS-MIC 16G - MS-MIC with 16 GB of memory provides 9GB of service throughput, > occupies single MIC slot on MX5, MX10, MX40, and MX80 3D Universal Edge > Routers, as well as on the MPC1, MPC2, and MPC3 cards for the MX2020, MX2010, > MX960, MX480, > and MX240 3D Universal Edge Router. > > MS-MPC-128 - MS-MPC with 128 GB of memory (32 GB per NPU), provides 60Gbps of > service throughput, occupies a single slot in MX2020, MX2010, MX960, MX480, > and MX240 3D Universal Edge Routers > > The rear picture of the MX80 at > http://www.juniper.net/shared/img/products/mx-series/mx80/mx80-rear-high.jpg > > Says "MPC 0" and "MIC 1" in smaller writing under it. > > From front right slot is also called "1/MIC 1" > > I think we need further clarification. > > > > > ...Skeeve > > Skeeve Stevens - eintellego Networks Pty Ltd > ske...@eintellegonetworks.com ; www.eintellegonetworks.com > Phone: 1300 239 038; Cell +61 (0)414 753 383 ; skype://skeeve > facebook.com/eintellegonetworks ; linkedin.com/in/skeeve > twitter.com/theispguy ; blog: www.theispguy.com > > The Experts Who The Experts Call > Juniper - Cisco - Cloud > > > On Wed, Nov 13, 2013 at 4:04 PM, Ben Dale wrote: > MS-MIC is out for the MX5-80: > > http://www.juniper.net/us/en/local/pdf/datasheets/1000454-en.pdf > > doesn't look like there isn't a services port on the back of the 104 though: > > http://www.juniper.net/shared/img/products/mx-series/mx104/mx104-rear-high.jpg > > maybe you can use one of the front slots? > > On 13 Nov 2013, at 2:52 pm, Skeeve Stevens > wrote: > > > Does anyone know how many users the MX104 will be able to handle though? > > > > The 4000 user limit on the MX80 was quite low. > > > > Does the MX104 have the services port on the back like the MX80? I'm > > waiting for the CGN Services card which was supposed to be released around > > now. > > > > > > ...Skeeve > > > > Skeeve Stevens - eintellego Networks Pty Ltd > > ske...@eintellegonetworks.com ; www.eintellegonetworks.com > > Phone: 1300 239 038; Cell +61 (0)414 753 383 ; skype://skeeve > > facebook.com/eintellegonetworks ; linkedin.com/in/skeeve > > twitter.com/theispguy ; blog: www.theispguy.com > > > > The Experts Who The Experts Call > > Juniper - Cisco - Cloud > > > > > > On Wed, Nov 13, 2013 at 3:46 PM, Ben Dale wrote: > > That and I think a lot of the BRAS "migration" functionality (LNS/LAC etc) > > was late to the party after being told it wasn't going to happen for > > anything lower than the 240. > > > > On 13 Nov 2013, at 12:51 pm, Bill Blackford wrote: > > > > > My personal feeling is the MX80 wasn't widely adopted as a lower density > > > subscriber box given the lack of redundant REs. The MX104 may find it's > > > niche as a BRAS. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > On Tue, Nov 12, 2013 at 5:25 PM, Eric Van Tol wrote: > > > > > >> One thing to keep in mind about these boxes is that, like the > > >> MX5/10/40/80, the built-in 10G ports do not do hierarchical QoS (per-unit > > >> scheduling). I'm confused as to why this is, considering they are > > >> Trio-based routers, but I digress. I personally don't think that the > > >> astronomical cost to enable the 10G ports on all the low-end MX routers > > >> is > > >> worth it, considering they can't even do per-unit scheduling. > > >> > > >> -evt > > >> > > >>> -Original Message- > > >>> From: juniper-nsp [mailto:juniper-nsp-boun...@puck.nether.net] On > > >> Behalf Of > > >>> joel jaeggli > > >>> Sent: Tuesday, November 12, 2013 4:00 PM > > >>> To: Saku Ytti > > >>> Cc: juniper-nsp@puck.nether.net > > >>> Subject: Re: [j-nsp] Juniper MX104 > > >>> > > >>> > > >>> On Nov 12, 2013, at 12:46 PM, Saku Ytti w
Re: [j-nsp] Juniper MX104
Isn't that using the front MIC slot though? The rear 'Services Slot' is an MPC slot isn't it? Based on the following: MS-MIC 16G - MS-MIC with 16 GB of memory provides 9GB of service throughput, occupies single MIC slot on MX5, MX10, MX40, and MX80 3D Universal Edge Routers, as well as on the MPC1, MPC2, and MPC3 cards for the MX2020, MX2010, MX960, MX480, and MX240 3D Universal Edge Router. MS-MPC-128 - MS-MPC with 128 GB of memory (32 GB per NPU), provides 60Gbps of service throughput, occupies a single slot in MX2020, MX2010, MX960, MX480, and MX240 3D Universal Edge Routers The rear picture of the MX80 at http://www.juniper.net/shared/img/products/mx-series/mx80/mx80-rear-high.jpg Says "MPC 0" and "MIC 1" in smaller writing under it. >From front right slot is also called "1/MIC 1" I think we need further clarification. ...Skeeve *Skeeve Stevens - *eintellego Networks Pty Ltd ske...@eintellegonetworks.com ; www.eintellegonetworks.com Phone: 1300 239 038; Cell +61 (0)414 753 383 ; skype://skeeve facebook.com/eintellegonetworks ; <http://twitter.com/networkceoau> linkedin.com/in/skeeve twitter.com/theispguy ; blog: www.theispguy.com The Experts Who The Experts Call Juniper - Cisco - Cloud On Wed, Nov 13, 2013 at 4:04 PM, Ben Dale wrote: > MS-MIC is out for the MX5-80: > > http://www.juniper.net/us/en/local/pdf/datasheets/1000454-en.pdf > > doesn't look like there isn't a services port on the back of the 104 > though: > > > http://www.juniper.net/shared/img/products/mx-series/mx104/mx104-rear-high.jpg > > maybe you can use one of the front slots? > > On 13 Nov 2013, at 2:52 pm, Skeeve Stevens < > skeeve+juniper...@eintellegonetworks.com> wrote: > > > Does anyone know how many users the MX104 will be able to handle though? > > > > The 4000 user limit on the MX80 was quite low. > > > > Does the MX104 have the services port on the back like the MX80? I'm > waiting for the CGN Services card which was supposed to be released around > now. > > > > > > ...Skeeve > > > > Skeeve Stevens - eintellego Networks Pty Ltd > > ske...@eintellegonetworks.com ; www.eintellegonetworks.com > > Phone: 1300 239 038; Cell +61 (0)414 753 383 ; skype://skeeve > > facebook.com/eintellegonetworks ; linkedin.com/in/skeeve > > twitter.com/theispguy ; blog: www.theispguy.com > > > > The Experts Who The Experts Call > > Juniper - Cisco - Cloud > > > > > > On Wed, Nov 13, 2013 at 3:46 PM, Ben Dale wrote: > > That and I think a lot of the BRAS "migration" functionality (LNS/LAC > etc) was late to the party after being told it wasn't going to happen for > anything lower than the 240. > > > > On 13 Nov 2013, at 12:51 pm, Bill Blackford > wrote: > > > > > My personal feeling is the MX80 wasn't widely adopted as a lower > density > > > subscriber box given the lack of redundant REs. The MX104 may find it's > > > niche as a BRAS. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > On Tue, Nov 12, 2013 at 5:25 PM, Eric Van Tol > wrote: > > > > > >> One thing to keep in mind about these boxes is that, like the > > >> MX5/10/40/80, the built-in 10G ports do not do hierarchical QoS > (per-unit > > >> scheduling). I'm confused as to why this is, considering they are > > >> Trio-based routers, but I digress. I personally don't think that the > > >> astronomical cost to enable the 10G ports on all the low-end MX > routers is > > >> worth it, considering they can't even do per-unit scheduling. > > >> > > >> -evt > > >> > > >>> -Original Message- > > >>> From: juniper-nsp [mailto:juniper-nsp-boun...@puck.nether.net] On > > >> Behalf Of > > >>> joel jaeggli > > >>> Sent: Tuesday, November 12, 2013 4:00 PM > > >>> To: Saku Ytti > > >>> Cc: juniper-nsp@puck.nether.net > > >>> Subject: Re: [j-nsp] Juniper MX104 > > >>> > > >>> > > >>> On Nov 12, 2013, at 12:46 PM, Saku Ytti wrote: > > >>> > > >>>> On (2013-11-12 20:14 +), Tom Storey wrote: > > >>>> > > >>>>> Why so much just to enable some ports? How do they come up with > that > > >>>>> kind of price? Pluck it out of thin air? > > >>>>> > > >>>>> The hardware has been paid for, and I know thats only list pricing, > > >>>>> but it still seems ridiculou
Re: [j-nsp] Juniper MX104
Anyone have have a ball park figure of what the MS-MIC will cost? On Wed, Nov 13, 2013 at 4:04 PM, Ben Dale wrote: > MS-MIC is out for the MX5-80: > > http://www.juniper.net/us/en/local/pdf/datasheets/1000454-en.pdf > > doesn't look like there isn't a services port on the back of the 104 > though: > > > http://www.juniper.net/shared/img/products/mx-series/mx104/mx104-rear-high.jpg > > maybe you can use one of the front slots? > > On 13 Nov 2013, at 2:52 pm, Skeeve Stevens < > skeeve+juniper...@eintellegonetworks.com> wrote: > > > Does anyone know how many users the MX104 will be able to handle though? > > > > The 4000 user limit on the MX80 was quite low. > > > > Does the MX104 have the services port on the back like the MX80? I'm > waiting for the CGN Services card which was supposed to be released around > now. > > > > > > ...Skeeve > > > > Skeeve Stevens - eintellego Networks Pty Ltd > > ske...@eintellegonetworks.com ; www.eintellegonetworks.com > > Phone: 1300 239 038; Cell +61 (0)414 753 383 ; skype://skeeve > > facebook.com/eintellegonetworks ; linkedin.com/in/skeeve > > twitter.com/theispguy ; blog: www.theispguy.com > > > > The Experts Who The Experts Call > > Juniper - Cisco - Cloud > > > > > > On Wed, Nov 13, 2013 at 3:46 PM, Ben Dale wrote: > > That and I think a lot of the BRAS "migration" functionality (LNS/LAC > etc) was late to the party after being told it wasn't going to happen for > anything lower than the 240. > > > > On 13 Nov 2013, at 12:51 pm, Bill Blackford > wrote: > > > > > My personal feeling is the MX80 wasn't widely adopted as a lower > density > > > subscriber box given the lack of redundant REs. The MX104 may find it's > > > niche as a BRAS. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > On Tue, Nov 12, 2013 at 5:25 PM, Eric Van Tol > wrote: > > > > > >> One thing to keep in mind about these boxes is that, like the > > >> MX5/10/40/80, the built-in 10G ports do not do hierarchical QoS > (per-unit > > >> scheduling). I'm confused as to why this is, considering they are > > >> Trio-based routers, but I digress. I personally don't think that the > > >> astronomical cost to enable the 10G ports on all the low-end MX > routers is > > >> worth it, considering they can't even do per-unit scheduling. > > >> > > >> -evt > > >> > > >>> -Original Message- > > >>> From: juniper-nsp [mailto:juniper-nsp-boun...@puck.nether.net] On > > >> Behalf Of > > >>> joel jaeggli > > >>> Sent: Tuesday, November 12, 2013 4:00 PM > > >>> To: Saku Ytti > > >>> Cc: juniper-nsp@puck.nether.net > > >>> Subject: Re: [j-nsp] Juniper MX104 > > >>> > > >>> > > >>> On Nov 12, 2013, at 12:46 PM, Saku Ytti wrote: > > >>> > > >>>> On (2013-11-12 20:14 +), Tom Storey wrote: > > >>>> > > >>>>> Why so much just to enable some ports? How do they come up with > that > > >>>>> kind of price? Pluck it out of thin air? > > >>>>> > > >>>>> The hardware has been paid for, and I know thats only list pricing, > > >>>>> but it still seems ridiculous. > > >>>> > > >>>> The question might have been rhetoric. But I'll bite. > > >>>> > > >>>> The BOM on these boxes is nothing, I'm guessing less than 1kUSD. But > > >> the > > >>>> volume you can sell them also is very very small, so the margins > need > > >> to > > >>> be > > >>>> very high to be able to design and support them. > > >>>> Licensing allows you to sell to larger group of people, people who > > >>> normally > > >>>> would buy smaller/inferior box, now can afford it, which in turn > > >> allows > > >>> you > > >>>> to reduce your margins, making you more competitive. > > >>>> > > >>>> I actually like it. I wish vendors like Agilent/Ixia, Spirent would > > >> sell > > >>>> test-kit with some sort of 'per hours used' license. Lot of SPs have > > >> need > > >>> for > > >>>> proper testing kit, but only will need them very
Re: [j-nsp] Juniper MX104
MS-MIC is out for the MX5-80: http://www.juniper.net/us/en/local/pdf/datasheets/1000454-en.pdf doesn't look like there isn't a services port on the back of the 104 though: http://www.juniper.net/shared/img/products/mx-series/mx104/mx104-rear-high.jpg maybe you can use one of the front slots? On 13 Nov 2013, at 2:52 pm, Skeeve Stevens wrote: > Does anyone know how many users the MX104 will be able to handle though? > > The 4000 user limit on the MX80 was quite low. > > Does the MX104 have the services port on the back like the MX80? I'm waiting > for the CGN Services card which was supposed to be released around now. > > > ...Skeeve > > Skeeve Stevens - eintellego Networks Pty Ltd > ske...@eintellegonetworks.com ; www.eintellegonetworks.com > Phone: 1300 239 038; Cell +61 (0)414 753 383 ; skype://skeeve > facebook.com/eintellegonetworks ; linkedin.com/in/skeeve > twitter.com/theispguy ; blog: www.theispguy.com > > The Experts Who The Experts Call > Juniper - Cisco - Cloud > > > On Wed, Nov 13, 2013 at 3:46 PM, Ben Dale wrote: > That and I think a lot of the BRAS "migration" functionality (LNS/LAC etc) > was late to the party after being told it wasn't going to happen for anything > lower than the 240. > > On 13 Nov 2013, at 12:51 pm, Bill Blackford wrote: > > > My personal feeling is the MX80 wasn't widely adopted as a lower density > > subscriber box given the lack of redundant REs. The MX104 may find it's > > niche as a BRAS. > > > > > > > > > > On Tue, Nov 12, 2013 at 5:25 PM, Eric Van Tol wrote: > > > >> One thing to keep in mind about these boxes is that, like the > >> MX5/10/40/80, the built-in 10G ports do not do hierarchical QoS (per-unit > >> scheduling). I'm confused as to why this is, considering they are > >> Trio-based routers, but I digress. I personally don't think that the > >> astronomical cost to enable the 10G ports on all the low-end MX routers is > >> worth it, considering they can't even do per-unit scheduling. > >> > >> -evt > >> > >>> -Original Message- > >>> From: juniper-nsp [mailto:juniper-nsp-boun...@puck.nether.net] On > >> Behalf Of > >>> joel jaeggli > >>> Sent: Tuesday, November 12, 2013 4:00 PM > >>> To: Saku Ytti > >>> Cc: juniper-nsp@puck.nether.net > >>> Subject: Re: [j-nsp] Juniper MX104 > >>> > >>> > >>> On Nov 12, 2013, at 12:46 PM, Saku Ytti wrote: > >>> > >>>> On (2013-11-12 20:14 +), Tom Storey wrote: > >>>> > >>>>> Why so much just to enable some ports? How do they come up with that > >>>>> kind of price? Pluck it out of thin air? > >>>>> > >>>>> The hardware has been paid for, and I know thats only list pricing, > >>>>> but it still seems ridiculous. > >>>> > >>>> The question might have been rhetoric. But I'll bite. > >>>> > >>>> The BOM on these boxes is nothing, I'm guessing less than 1kUSD. But > >> the > >>>> volume you can sell them also is very very small, so the margins need > >> to > >>> be > >>>> very high to be able to design and support them. > >>>> Licensing allows you to sell to larger group of people, people who > >>> normally > >>>> would buy smaller/inferior box, now can afford it, which in turn > >> allows > >>> you > >>>> to reduce your margins, making you more competitive. > >>>> > >>>> I actually like it. I wish vendors like Agilent/Ixia, Spirent would > >> sell > >>>> test-kit with some sort of 'per hours used' license. Lot of SPs have > >> need > >>> for > >>>> proper testing kit, but only will need them very irregularly. And > >> renting > >>> is > >>>> always such a chore. It's same thing there, BOM is nothing, but volume > >> is > >>> even > >>>> lower, so prices are ridiculously high, consequently proper testing is > >>> very > >>>> rarely done by other than telco size SPs. > >>> > >>> It's one of those things where you work with account team. if the > >> commercial > >>> terms don't work out for most potential buyers, then the product won't be > >>> successful and either things will change or they won't. > >>> > >>>> -- > >>>> ++ytti > >>>> ___ > >>>> 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 > >> > > > > > > > > -- > > Bill Blackford > > > > Logged into reality and abusing my sudo privileges. > > ___ > > 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 > ___ juniper-nsp mailing list juniper-nsp@puck.nether.net https://puck.nether.net/mailman/listinfo/juniper-nsp
Re: [j-nsp] Juniper MX104
Does anyone know how many users the MX104 will be able to handle though? The 4000 user limit on the MX80 was quite low. Does the MX104 have the services port on the back like the MX80? I'm waiting for the CGN Services card which was supposed to be released around now. ...Skeeve *Skeeve Stevens - *eintellego Networks Pty Ltd ske...@eintellegonetworks.com ; www.eintellegonetworks.com Phone: 1300 239 038; Cell +61 (0)414 753 383 ; skype://skeeve facebook.com/eintellegonetworks ; <http://twitter.com/networkceoau> linkedin.com/in/skeeve twitter.com/theispguy ; blog: www.theispguy.com The Experts Who The Experts Call Juniper - Cisco - Cloud On Wed, Nov 13, 2013 at 3:46 PM, Ben Dale wrote: > That and I think a lot of the BRAS "migration" functionality (LNS/LAC etc) > was late to the party after being told it wasn't going to happen for > anything lower than the 240. > > On 13 Nov 2013, at 12:51 pm, Bill Blackford wrote: > > > My personal feeling is the MX80 wasn't widely adopted as a lower density > > subscriber box given the lack of redundant REs. The MX104 may find it's > > niche as a BRAS. > > > > > > > > > > On Tue, Nov 12, 2013 at 5:25 PM, Eric Van Tol > wrote: > > > >> One thing to keep in mind about these boxes is that, like the > >> MX5/10/40/80, the built-in 10G ports do not do hierarchical QoS > (per-unit > >> scheduling). I'm confused as to why this is, considering they are > >> Trio-based routers, but I digress. I personally don't think that the > >> astronomical cost to enable the 10G ports on all the low-end MX routers > is > >> worth it, considering they can't even do per-unit scheduling. > >> > >> -evt > >> > >>> -Original Message- > >>> From: juniper-nsp [mailto:juniper-nsp-boun...@puck.nether.net] On > >> Behalf Of > >>> joel jaeggli > >>> Sent: Tuesday, November 12, 2013 4:00 PM > >>> To: Saku Ytti > >>> Cc: juniper-nsp@puck.nether.net > >>> Subject: Re: [j-nsp] Juniper MX104 > >>> > >>> > >>> On Nov 12, 2013, at 12:46 PM, Saku Ytti wrote: > >>> > >>>> On (2013-11-12 20:14 +), Tom Storey wrote: > >>>> > >>>>> Why so much just to enable some ports? How do they come up with that > >>>>> kind of price? Pluck it out of thin air? > >>>>> > >>>>> The hardware has been paid for, and I know thats only list pricing, > >>>>> but it still seems ridiculous. > >>>> > >>>> The question might have been rhetoric. But I'll bite. > >>>> > >>>> The BOM on these boxes is nothing, I'm guessing less than 1kUSD. But > >> the > >>>> volume you can sell them also is very very small, so the margins need > >> to > >>> be > >>>> very high to be able to design and support them. > >>>> Licensing allows you to sell to larger group of people, people who > >>> normally > >>>> would buy smaller/inferior box, now can afford it, which in turn > >> allows > >>> you > >>>> to reduce your margins, making you more competitive. > >>>> > >>>> I actually like it. I wish vendors like Agilent/Ixia, Spirent would > >> sell > >>>> test-kit with some sort of 'per hours used' license. Lot of SPs have > >> need > >>> for > >>>> proper testing kit, but only will need them very irregularly. And > >> renting > >>> is > >>>> always such a chore. It's same thing there, BOM is nothing, but volume > >> is > >>> even > >>>> lower, so prices are ridiculously high, consequently proper testing is > >>> very > >>>> rarely done by other than telco size SPs. > >>> > >>> It's one of those things where you work with account team. if the > >> commercial > >>> terms don't work out for most potential buyers, then the product won't > be > >>> successful and either things will change or they won't. > >>> > >>>> -- > >>>> ++ytti > >>>> ___ > >>>> 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 > >> > > > > > > > > -- > > Bill Blackford > > > > Logged into reality and abusing my sudo privileges. > > ___ > > 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 > ___ juniper-nsp mailing list juniper-nsp@puck.nether.net https://puck.nether.net/mailman/listinfo/juniper-nsp
Re: [j-nsp] Juniper MX104
That and I think a lot of the BRAS "migration" functionality (LNS/LAC etc) was late to the party after being told it wasn't going to happen for anything lower than the 240. On 13 Nov 2013, at 12:51 pm, Bill Blackford wrote: > My personal feeling is the MX80 wasn't widely adopted as a lower density > subscriber box given the lack of redundant REs. The MX104 may find it's > niche as a BRAS. > > > > > On Tue, Nov 12, 2013 at 5:25 PM, Eric Van Tol wrote: > >> One thing to keep in mind about these boxes is that, like the >> MX5/10/40/80, the built-in 10G ports do not do hierarchical QoS (per-unit >> scheduling). I'm confused as to why this is, considering they are >> Trio-based routers, but I digress. I personally don't think that the >> astronomical cost to enable the 10G ports on all the low-end MX routers is >> worth it, considering they can't even do per-unit scheduling. >> >> -evt >> >>> -Original Message- >>> From: juniper-nsp [mailto:juniper-nsp-boun...@puck.nether.net] On >> Behalf Of >>> joel jaeggli >>> Sent: Tuesday, November 12, 2013 4:00 PM >>> To: Saku Ytti >>> Cc: juniper-nsp@puck.nether.net >>> Subject: Re: [j-nsp] Juniper MX104 >>> >>> >>> On Nov 12, 2013, at 12:46 PM, Saku Ytti wrote: >>> >>>> On (2013-11-12 20:14 +), Tom Storey wrote: >>>> >>>>> Why so much just to enable some ports? How do they come up with that >>>>> kind of price? Pluck it out of thin air? >>>>> >>>>> The hardware has been paid for, and I know thats only list pricing, >>>>> but it still seems ridiculous. >>>> >>>> The question might have been rhetoric. But I'll bite. >>>> >>>> The BOM on these boxes is nothing, I'm guessing less than 1kUSD. But >> the >>>> volume you can sell them also is very very small, so the margins need >> to >>> be >>>> very high to be able to design and support them. >>>> Licensing allows you to sell to larger group of people, people who >>> normally >>>> would buy smaller/inferior box, now can afford it, which in turn >> allows >>> you >>>> to reduce your margins, making you more competitive. >>>> >>>> I actually like it. I wish vendors like Agilent/Ixia, Spirent would >> sell >>>> test-kit with some sort of 'per hours used' license. Lot of SPs have >> need >>> for >>>> proper testing kit, but only will need them very irregularly. And >> renting >>> is >>>> always such a chore. It's same thing there, BOM is nothing, but volume >> is >>> even >>>> lower, so prices are ridiculously high, consequently proper testing is >>> very >>>> rarely done by other than telco size SPs. >>> >>> It's one of those things where you work with account team. if the >> commercial >>> terms don't work out for most potential buyers, then the product won't be >>> successful and either things will change or they won't. >>> >>>> -- >>>> ++ytti >>>> ___ >>>> 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 >> > > > > -- > Bill Blackford > > Logged into reality and abusing my sudo privileges. > ___ > 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 MX104
My personal feeling is the MX80 wasn't widely adopted as a lower density subscriber box given the lack of redundant REs. The MX104 may find it's niche as a BRAS. On Tue, Nov 12, 2013 at 5:25 PM, Eric Van Tol wrote: > One thing to keep in mind about these boxes is that, like the > MX5/10/40/80, the built-in 10G ports do not do hierarchical QoS (per-unit > scheduling). I'm confused as to why this is, considering they are > Trio-based routers, but I digress. I personally don't think that the > astronomical cost to enable the 10G ports on all the low-end MX routers is > worth it, considering they can't even do per-unit scheduling. > > -evt > > > -Original Message- > > From: juniper-nsp [mailto:juniper-nsp-boun...@puck.nether.net] On > Behalf Of > > joel jaeggli > > Sent: Tuesday, November 12, 2013 4:00 PM > > To: Saku Ytti > > Cc: juniper-nsp@puck.nether.net > > Subject: Re: [j-nsp] Juniper MX104 > > > > > > On Nov 12, 2013, at 12:46 PM, Saku Ytti wrote: > > > > > On (2013-11-12 20:14 +), Tom Storey wrote: > > > > > >> Why so much just to enable some ports? How do they come up with that > > >> kind of price? Pluck it out of thin air? > > >> > > >> The hardware has been paid for, and I know thats only list pricing, > > >> but it still seems ridiculous. > > > > > > The question might have been rhetoric. But I'll bite. > > > > > > The BOM on these boxes is nothing, I'm guessing less than 1kUSD. But > the > > > volume you can sell them also is very very small, so the margins need > to > > be > > > very high to be able to design and support them. > > > Licensing allows you to sell to larger group of people, people who > > normally > > > would buy smaller/inferior box, now can afford it, which in turn > allows > > you > > > to reduce your margins, making you more competitive. > > > > > > I actually like it. I wish vendors like Agilent/Ixia, Spirent would > sell > > > test-kit with some sort of 'per hours used' license. Lot of SPs have > need > > for > > > proper testing kit, but only will need them very irregularly. And > renting > > is > > > always such a chore. It's same thing there, BOM is nothing, but volume > is > > even > > > lower, so prices are ridiculously high, consequently proper testing is > > very > > > rarely done by other than telco size SPs. > > > > It's one of those things where you work with account team. if the > commercial > > terms don't work out for most potential buyers, then the product won't be > > successful and either things will change or they won't. > > > > > -- > > > ++ytti > > > ___ > > > 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 > -- Bill Blackford Logged into reality and abusing my sudo privileges. ___ juniper-nsp mailing list juniper-nsp@puck.nether.net https://puck.nether.net/mailman/listinfo/juniper-nsp
Re: [j-nsp] Juniper MX104
One thing to keep in mind about these boxes is that, like the MX5/10/40/80, the built-in 10G ports do not do hierarchical QoS (per-unit scheduling). I'm confused as to why this is, considering they are Trio-based routers, but I digress. I personally don't think that the astronomical cost to enable the 10G ports on all the low-end MX routers is worth it, considering they can't even do per-unit scheduling. -evt > -Original Message- > From: juniper-nsp [mailto:juniper-nsp-boun...@puck.nether.net] On Behalf Of > joel jaeggli > Sent: Tuesday, November 12, 2013 4:00 PM > To: Saku Ytti > Cc: juniper-nsp@puck.nether.net > Subject: Re: [j-nsp] Juniper MX104 > > > On Nov 12, 2013, at 12:46 PM, Saku Ytti wrote: > > > On (2013-11-12 20:14 +), Tom Storey wrote: > > > >> Why so much just to enable some ports? How do they come up with that > >> kind of price? Pluck it out of thin air? > >> > >> The hardware has been paid for, and I know thats only list pricing, > >> but it still seems ridiculous. > > > > The question might have been rhetoric. But I'll bite. > > > > The BOM on these boxes is nothing, I'm guessing less than 1kUSD. But the > > volume you can sell them also is very very small, so the margins need to > be > > very high to be able to design and support them. > > Licensing allows you to sell to larger group of people, people who > normally > > would buy smaller/inferior box, now can afford it, which in turn allows > you > > to reduce your margins, making you more competitive. > > > > I actually like it. I wish vendors like Agilent/Ixia, Spirent would sell > > test-kit with some sort of 'per hours used' license. Lot of SPs have need > for > > proper testing kit, but only will need them very irregularly. And renting > is > > always such a chore. It's same thing there, BOM is nothing, but volume is > even > > lower, so prices are ridiculously high, consequently proper testing is > very > > rarely done by other than telco size SPs. > > It's one of those things where you work with account team. if the commercial > terms don't work out for most potential buyers, then the product won't be > successful and either things will change or they won't. > > > -- > > ++ytti > > ___ > > 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 MX104
On Nov 12, 2013, at 12:46 PM, Saku Ytti wrote: > On (2013-11-12 20:14 +), Tom Storey wrote: > >> Why so much just to enable some ports? How do they come up with that >> kind of price? Pluck it out of thin air? >> >> The hardware has been paid for, and I know thats only list pricing, >> but it still seems ridiculous. > > The question might have been rhetoric. But I'll bite. > > The BOM on these boxes is nothing, I'm guessing less than 1kUSD. But the > volume you can sell them also is very very small, so the margins need to be > very high to be able to design and support them. > Licensing allows you to sell to larger group of people, people who normally > would buy smaller/inferior box, now can afford it, which in turn allows you > to reduce your margins, making you more competitive. > > I actually like it. I wish vendors like Agilent/Ixia, Spirent would sell > test-kit with some sort of 'per hours used' license. Lot of SPs have need for > proper testing kit, but only will need them very irregularly. And renting is > always such a chore. It's same thing there, BOM is nothing, but volume is even > lower, so prices are ridiculously high, consequently proper testing is very > rarely done by other than telco size SPs. It’s one of those things where you work with account team. if the commercial terms don’t work out for most potential buyers, then the product won’t be successful and either things will change or they won’t. > -- > ++ytti > ___ > juniper-nsp mailing list juniper-nsp@puck.nether.net > https://puck.nether.net/mailman/listinfo/juniper-nsp > signature.asc Description: Message signed with OpenPGP using GPGMail ___ juniper-nsp mailing list juniper-nsp@puck.nether.net https://puck.nether.net/mailman/listinfo/juniper-nsp
Re: [j-nsp] Juniper MX104
On (2013-11-12 20:14 +), Tom Storey wrote: > Why so much just to enable some ports? How do they come up with that > kind of price? Pluck it out of thin air? > > The hardware has been paid for, and I know thats only list pricing, > but it still seems ridiculous. The question might have been rhetoric. But I'll bite. The BOM on these boxes is nothing, I'm guessing less than 1kUSD. But the volume you can sell them also is very very small, so the margins need to be very high to be able to design and support them. Licensing allows you to sell to larger group of people, people who normally would buy smaller/inferior box, now can afford it, which in turn allows you to reduce your margins, making you more competitive. I actually like it. I wish vendors like Agilent/Ixia, Spirent would sell test-kit with some sort of 'per hours used' license. Lot of SPs have need for proper testing kit, but only will need them very irregularly. And renting is always such a chore. It's same thing there, BOM is nothing, but volume is even lower, so prices are ridiculously high, consequently proper testing is very rarely done by other than telco size SPs. -- ++ytti ___ juniper-nsp mailing list juniper-nsp@puck.nether.net https://puck.nether.net/mailman/listinfo/juniper-nsp
Re: [j-nsp] Juniper MX104
Why so much just to enable some ports? How do they come up with that kind of price? Pluck it out of thin air? The hardware has been paid for, and I know thats only list pricing, but it still seems ridiculous. On 8 November 2013 16:46, Paul Nazario wrote: > That is what we've heard and they have the following two items in their $USD > list pricing: > > > S-MX104-UPG-2X10GE Upgrade License to activate 2 x 10GE fixed ports on > MX104 MX104 $10,000 > S-MX104-UPG-4X10GE Upgrade License to activate 4 x 10GE fixed ports on > MX104 MX104 $18,000 > > > > On Nov 5, 2013, at 1:16 PM, Nicolaj Kamensek wrote: > >> Hi everybody, >> >> anybody had a chance yet to put their hands on the new MX104? According to >> Juniper the 4 10G ports on-board are software locked this time but I'd like >> to have a confirmation for that from an actual experience. >> >> >> Thanks! >> ___ >> 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 ___ juniper-nsp mailing list juniper-nsp@puck.nether.net https://puck.nether.net/mailman/listinfo/juniper-nsp
Re: [j-nsp] Juniper MX104
That is what we've heard and they have the following two items in their $USD list pricing: S-MX104-UPG-2X10GE Upgrade License to activate 2 x 10GE fixed ports on MX104 MX104 $10,000 S-MX104-UPG-4X10GE Upgrade License to activate 4 x 10GE fixed ports on MX104 MX104 $18,000 On Nov 5, 2013, at 1:16 PM, Nicolaj Kamensek wrote: > Hi everybody, > > anybody had a chance yet to put their hands on the new MX104? According to > Juniper the 4 10G ports on-board are software locked this time but I'd like > to have a confirmation for that from an actual experience. > > > Thanks! > ___ > 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] Juniper MX104
Hi everybody, anybody had a chance yet to put their hands on the new MX104? According to Juniper the 4 10G ports on-board are software locked this time but I'd like to have a confirmation for that from an actual experience. Thanks! ___ juniper-nsp mailing list juniper-nsp@puck.nether.net https://puck.nether.net/mailman/listinfo/juniper-nsp
