Re: [j-nsp] MX80 - restricted bundles and disabled 10G ports.
A question almost too obvious to ask, but can someone with one of the restricted MX80 bundles (which disables 2 of the 10G ports) confirm that ports 0/0/0 and 0/0/1 are the ones left enabled? I don't have a restricted one yet, and am trying to finish a standards doc. Thanksjust trying to avoid assumptions here. Sorry to hijack this thread but has anyone done a bakeoff between the MX80 and the ASR1k? As far as price to performance/flexibility, etc? -Drew ___ juniper-nsp mailing list juniper-nsp@puck.nether.net https://puck.nether.net/mailman/listinfo/juniper-nsp
Re: [j-nsp] MX80 - restricted bundles and disabled 10G ports.
Hi all, Does anybody know if Juniper's MPC cards support SFP+ ZR (80km) modules ? Thanks Regards David David Roy Orange - IP Domestic Backbone - TAC Tel. +33(0)299876472 Mob. +33(0)685522213 Email. david@orange-ftgroup.com JNCIE-M/T #703 ; JNCIS-ENT IMPORTANT.Les informations contenues dans ce message electronique y compris les fichiers attaches sont strictement confidentielles et peuvent etre protegees par la loi. Ce message electronique est destine exclusivement au(x) destinataire(s) mentionne(s) ci-dessus. Si vous avez recu ce message par erreur ou s il ne vous est pas destine, veuillez immediatement le signaler a l expediteur et effacer ce message et tous les fichiers eventuellement attaches. Toute lecture, exploitation ou transmission des informations contenues dans ce message est interdite. Tout message electronique est susceptible d alteration. A ce titre, le Groupe France Telecom decline toute responsabilite notamment s il a ete altere, deforme ou falsifie. De meme, il appartient au destinataire de s assurer de l absence de tout virus. IMPORTANT.This e-mail message and any attachments are strictly confidential and may be protected by law. This message is intended only for the named recipient(s) above. If you have received this message in error, or are not the named recipient(s), please immediately notify the sender and delete this e-mail message. Any unauthorized view, usage or disclosure ofthis message is prohibited. Since e-mail messages may not be reliable, France Telecom Group shall not be liable for any message if modified, changed or falsified. Additionally the recipient should ensure they are actually virus free. ___ juniper-nsp mailing list juniper-nsp@puck.nether.net https://puck.nether.net/mailman/listinfo/juniper-nsp
Re: [j-nsp] MX80 - restricted bundles and disabled 10G ports.
True, but I think this demonstrates that we need more than 2.5 vendors in this market. On Apr 12, 2011, at 15:26, Richard A Steenbergen wrote: > On Tue, Apr 12, 2011 at 10:05:31AM -0700, joe mcguckin wrote: >> Think for a second what this means about the manufacturing cost of a >> 10G port if they can literally give 2 away. And then think about the >> profit margin on said ports when Juniper sells them for what? 6k or 7k >> each? > > If you ever thought that COGS had *anything* to do with the price that > any vendor charges for a router, you were seriously mistaken. At least > this method allows you to start out buying a smaller router, and upgrade > later without doing a total hardware swap. > > -- > Richard A Steenbergenhttp://www.e-gerbil.net/ras > GPG Key ID: 0xF8B12CBC (7535 7F59 8204 ED1F CC1C 53AF 4C41 5ECA F8B1 2CBC) ___ juniper-nsp mailing list juniper-nsp@puck.nether.net https://puck.nether.net/mailman/listinfo/juniper-nsp
Re: [j-nsp] MX80 - restricted bundles and disabled 10G ports.
Once upon a time, Richard A Steenbergen said: > If you ever thought that COGS had *anything* to do with the price that > any vendor charges for a router, you were seriously mistaken. At least > this method allows you to start out buying a smaller router, and upgrade > later without doing a total hardware swap. Yep. This is far from the first time Juniper has done this. Remember the original J2300, with only one T1 port licensed? IIRC there are several SRX models with low/high RAM versions where it is just a license. The amount Juniper saves by not having to stock different hardware probably comes close to paying for the difference in manufacturing costs (and then a fair number of customers will upgrade by buying a license key over time to make up the difference). -- Chris Adams Systems and Network Administrator - HiWAAY Internet Services I don't speak for anybody but myself - that's enough trouble. ___ juniper-nsp mailing list juniper-nsp@puck.nether.net https://puck.nether.net/mailman/listinfo/juniper-nsp
Re: [j-nsp] MX80 - restricted bundles and disabled 10G ports.
Another example - take a box like the SRX100 - both the high and low memory versions have 1G of onboard memory (surface mount, no DIMMS), but the low mem version only has 512MB active with a license key unlocking the rest. The exact same bit of tin - three quarters of the price. I guess from the manufacturing side of things, there is one less model to have to spec and build which must save a small fortune. I suspect manufacturing cost of almost any box these days is in the sub 5% of actual resale - the rest is all "value" ; ) On 13/04/2011, at 3:05 AM, joe mcguckin wrote: > Think for a second what this means about the manufacturing cost of a 10G port > if they can literally give 2 away. And then think about the profit margin > on said ports when Juniper sells them for what? 6k or 7k each? > > > Joe McGuckin > ViaNet Communications > > j...@via.net > 650-207-0372 cell > 650-213-1302 office > 650-969-2124 fax > > > > On Apr 12, 2011, at 9:44 AM, Kevin Oberman wrote: > >>> Date: Tue, 12 Apr 2011 08:05:25 -0700 (PDT) >>> From: Derick Winkworth >>> Sender: juniper-nsp-boun...@puck.nether.net >>> >>> Argh! Please tell me this is a joke! >>> >>> >>> >>> ________________ >>> From: David Ball >>> To: Juniper-Nsp >>> Sent: Tue, April 12, 2011 9:46:45 AM >>> Subject: [j-nsp] MX80 - restricted bundles and disabled 10G ports. >>> >>> A question almost too obvious to ask, but can someone with one of >>> the restricted MX80 bundles (which disables 2 of the 10G ports) >>> confirm that ports 0/0/0 and 0/0/1 are the ones left enabled? I don't >>> have a restricted one yet, and am trying to finish a standards doc. >>> Thanksjust trying to avoid assumptions here. >>> >>> David >>> ___ >>> 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 >> >> Oh, it most certainly is a joke! A bad one. >> >> But that does not make it less real. Reminds me of 20 or 25 years ago >> when Digital came out with a cheap micro-VAX system that was identical >> to a much more expensive system with the exception of the epoxy with >> which they filled the expansion slots. The cost of a replacement Q-Bus >> backplane was far below the difference between the two systems, so guess >> what everyone was doing! That joke turned out to be on DEC. >> -- >> R. Kevin Oberman, Network Engineer >> Energy Sciences Network (ESnet) >> Ernest O. Lawrence Berkeley National Laboratory (Berkeley Lab) >> E-mail: ober...@es.net Phone: +1 510 486-8634 >> Key fingerprint:059B 2DDF 031C 9BA3 14A4 EADA 927D EBB3 987B 3751 >> ___ >> 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] MX80 - restricted bundles and disabled 10G ports.
On Tue, Apr 12, 2011 at 10:05:31AM -0700, joe mcguckin wrote: > Think for a second what this means about the manufacturing cost of a > 10G port if they can literally give 2 away. And then think about the > profit margin on said ports when Juniper sells them for what? 6k or 7k > each? If you ever thought that COGS had *anything* to do with the price that any vendor charges for a router, you were seriously mistaken. At least this method allows you to start out buying a smaller router, and upgrade later without doing a total hardware swap. -- Richard A Steenbergenhttp://www.e-gerbil.net/ras GPG Key ID: 0xF8B12CBC (7535 7F59 8204 ED1F CC1C 53AF 4C41 5ECA F8B1 2CBC) ___ juniper-nsp mailing list juniper-nsp@puck.nether.net https://puck.nether.net/mailman/listinfo/juniper-nsp
Re: [j-nsp] MX80 - restricted bundles and disabled 10G ports.
Think for a second what this means about the manufacturing cost of a 10G port if they can literally give 2 away. And then think about the profit margin on said ports when Juniper sells them for what? 6k or 7k each? Joe McGuckin ViaNet Communications j...@via.net 650-207-0372 cell 650-213-1302 office 650-969-2124 fax On Apr 12, 2011, at 9:44 AM, Kevin Oberman wrote: >> Date: Tue, 12 Apr 2011 08:05:25 -0700 (PDT) >> From: Derick Winkworth >> Sender: juniper-nsp-boun...@puck.nether.net >> >> Argh! Please tell me this is a joke! >> >> >> >> >> From: David Ball >> To: Juniper-Nsp >> Sent: Tue, April 12, 2011 9:46:45 AM >> Subject: [j-nsp] MX80 - restricted bundles and disabled 10G ports. >> >> A question almost too obvious to ask, but can someone with one of >> the restricted MX80 bundles (which disables 2 of the 10G ports) >> confirm that ports 0/0/0 and 0/0/1 are the ones left enabled? I don't >> have a restricted one yet, and am trying to finish a standards doc. >> Thanksjust trying to avoid assumptions here. >> >> David >> ___ >> 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 > > Oh, it most certainly is a joke! A bad one. > > But that does not make it less real. Reminds me of 20 or 25 years ago > when Digital came out with a cheap micro-VAX system that was identical > to a much more expensive system with the exception of the epoxy with > which they filled the expansion slots. The cost of a replacement Q-Bus > backplane was far below the difference between the two systems, so guess > what everyone was doing! That joke turned out to be on DEC. > -- > R. Kevin Oberman, Network Engineer > Energy Sciences Network (ESnet) > Ernest O. Lawrence Berkeley National Laboratory (Berkeley Lab) > E-mail: ober...@es.netPhone: +1 510 486-8634 > Key fingerprint:059B 2DDF 031C 9BA3 14A4 EADA 927D EBB3 987B 3751 > ___ > 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] MX80 - restricted bundles and disabled 10G ports.
> Date: Tue, 12 Apr 2011 08:05:25 -0700 (PDT) > From: Derick Winkworth > Sender: juniper-nsp-boun...@puck.nether.net > > Argh! Please tell me this is a joke! > > > > > From: David Ball > To: Juniper-Nsp > Sent: Tue, April 12, 2011 9:46:45 AM > Subject: [j-nsp] MX80 - restricted bundles and disabled 10G ports. > > A question almost too obvious to ask, but can someone with one of > the restricted MX80 bundles (which disables 2 of the 10G ports) > confirm that ports 0/0/0 and 0/0/1 are the ones left enabled? I don't > have a restricted one yet, and am trying to finish a standards doc. > Thanksjust trying to avoid assumptions here. > > David > ___ > 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 Oh, it most certainly is a joke! A bad one. But that does not make it less real. Reminds me of 20 or 25 years ago when Digital came out with a cheap micro-VAX system that was identical to a much more expensive system with the exception of the epoxy with which they filled the expansion slots. The cost of a replacement Q-Bus backplane was far below the difference between the two systems, so guess what everyone was doing! That joke turned out to be on DEC. -- R. Kevin Oberman, Network Engineer Energy Sciences Network (ESnet) Ernest O. Lawrence Berkeley National Laboratory (Berkeley Lab) E-mail: ober...@es.net Phone: +1 510 486-8634 Key fingerprint:059B 2DDF 031C 9BA3 14A4 EADA 927D EBB3 987B 3751 ___ juniper-nsp mailing list juniper-nsp@puck.nether.net https://puck.nether.net/mailman/listinfo/juniper-nsp
Re: [j-nsp] MX80 - restricted bundles and disabled 10G ports.
Argh! Please tell me this is a joke! From: David Ball To: Juniper-Nsp Sent: Tue, April 12, 2011 9:46:45 AM Subject: [j-nsp] MX80 - restricted bundles and disabled 10G ports. A question almost too obvious to ask, but can someone with one of the restricted MX80 bundles (which disables 2 of the 10G ports) confirm that ports 0/0/0 and 0/0/1 are the ones left enabled? I don't have a restricted one yet, and am trying to finish a standards doc. Thanksjust trying to avoid assumptions here. David ___ 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] MX80 - restricted bundles and disabled 10G ports.
A question almost too obvious to ask, but can someone with one of the restricted MX80 bundles (which disables 2 of the 10G ports) confirm that ports 0/0/0 and 0/0/1 are the ones left enabled? I don't have a restricted one yet, and am trying to finish a standards doc. Thanksjust trying to avoid assumptions here. David ___ juniper-nsp mailing list juniper-nsp@puck.nether.net https://puck.nether.net/mailman/listinfo/juniper-nsp
