Re: [c-nsp] Juniper MX240 & MX480

> From: Mark Tinka [mailto:mark.ti...@seacom.mu] > Sent: Wednesday, November 01, 2017 9:12 AM > But you must have some really unique hardware-related issues, then. > Between all the existing array of Trio-based MPC's/MIC's, and now the > MX10003 with the 3rd-generation Trio chip, one would hope

Re: [c-nsp] Juniper MX240 & MX480

On 1/Nov/17 16:38, adamv0...@netconsultings.com wrote: > Alright so 10003 MPC is actually using 3x the 400G version. Yep... Mark. ___ cisco-nsp mailing list cisco-nsp@puck.nether.net https://puck.nether.net/mailman/listinfo/cisco-nsp archive at

Re: [c-nsp] Juniper MX240 & MX480

> From: Chris Welti [mailto:chris.we...@switch.ch] > Sent: Wednesday, November 01, 2017 10:55 AM > > The 3rd-Gen (EA) Trio chip is actually rated at 480G, has been rate-limited to > 240G in MPC7e and MPC8e linecards and is currently rate-limited to 400G in > the MPC9e cards and the 10003 MPC.

Re: [c-nsp] Juniper MX240 & MX480

On 1/Nov/17 12:54, Chris Welti wrote: > System capacity of the MX10003 chassis is claimed to be 4.8T, so either there > might be future MPC line cards with 2.4T > or they are counting capacity per direction ;) > https://www.juniper.net/us/en/products-services/routing/mx-series/mx10003/ It's

Re: [c-nsp] Juniper MX240 & MX480

On 1/Nov/17 12:25, adamv0...@netconsultings.com wrote: > Hmm that doesn’t seem right, > Materials say it's 1.2T per chassis. > So 600G per card and 3rd-Gen (EA) Trio is rated at 240G, so 3 of them would > give you max 720G. Not on the internals I've been provided so far. What I can add is

Re: [c-nsp] Juniper MX240 & MX480

The 3rd-Gen (EA) Trio chip is actually rated at 480G, has been rate-limited to 240G in MPC7e and MPC8e linecards and is currently rate-limited to 400G in the MPC9e cards and the 10003 MPC. I have no idea why it is rate-limited but suspect thermal issues? See the book Juniper MX Series, 2nd

Re: [c-nsp] Juniper MX240 & MX480

> From: Mark Tinka [mailto:mark.ti...@seacom.mu] > Sent: Tuesday, October 31, 2017 2:41 PM > > There is a crossbar. The only thing I found about it was: Switch fabric capacity per slot N/A > Each MPC supports 1.2Tbps (delivered via 3x 3rd-Gen Trio chipsets in each > MPC) that handle the MIC's and

Re: [c-nsp] Juniper MX240 & MX480

On 1/Nov/17 11:08, adamv0...@netconsultings.com wrote: > True that, > SW I can work around, it's the HW performance and flaws/compromises that > concerns me as it's much harder to convince vendors to fix those and > sometimes these even can't be fixed. True, partially why I've tried to stay

Re: [c-nsp] Juniper MX240 & MX480

On 31/Oct/17 10:48, Saku Ytti wrote: > Am I only one puzzled about MX204 port choice, 4xQSFP28 + 8xSFP+. > Seems like it's positioned to datacenters facing upstream? I'd want > 2xQSFP28 and maybe 36xSFP+ (oversub is fine), with attractive > licensing using SFP+ as SFP only, to add L3 DFZ 1GE

Re: [c-nsp] Juniper MX240 & MX480

> From: Mark Tinka [mailto:mark.ti...@seacom.mu] > Sent: Tuesday, October 31, 2017 2:29 PM > > You're probably right, but we pick our battles. In the grand scheme of things, > after all is said and done, this isn't fundamentally one of them that will > determine whether we go MX or ASR. > True

Re: [c-nsp] Juniper MX240 & MX480

On 31/Oct/17 15:33, adamv0...@netconsultings.com wrote: > Interesting, seems like two mpc7 cards connected back to back, wondering how > they managed to connect 4 trio chips in a non-blocking fashion with no > crossbar. > Does anyone have any material on the platform internals please? There is

Re: [c-nsp] Juniper MX240 & MX480

On 31/Oct/17 15:30, adamv0...@netconsultings.com wrote: > But I actually do mind the fact that, > > 1)BGP tables (e.g. bgp.l3vpn.0) are created only at the instance when PE > needs to store received MP-BGP routes in them. > -this is very confusing when coming from vendor where all tables

Re: [c-nsp] Juniper MX240 & MX480

> Mark Tinka > Sent: Tuesday, October 31, 2017 5:57 AM > > > > On 26/Oct/17 11:08, Dale Shaw wrote: > > > Indeed. > > > > Mark, try asking on juniper-nsp instead: > > https://puck.nether.net/mailman/listinfo/juniper-nsp > > > > In related news, I see that Juniper has announced the MX150

Re: [c-nsp] Juniper MX240 & MX480

> From: Mark Tinka [mailto:mark.ti...@seacom.mu] > Sent: Tuesday, October 31, 2017 5:59 AM > > On 26/Oct/17 10:26, adamv0...@netconsultings.com wrote: > The selection of tool depends on the job to be done, and you haven't > provided any info on what you intend to use the boxes for so I can >

Re: [c-nsp] Juniper MX240 & MX480

Regarding CWDM/DWDM, you could always add a QFX5110-48SH as a port extender box to the MX204 with Junos Fusion Provider Edge and sacrifice one or two 100G QSFP28 ports on the MX204. That way you'd have 2x100G and 48x 1/10G SFP+ ports with a bit of oversubscription in 2RU. Does anyone know if

Re: [c-nsp] Juniper MX240 & MX480

> Am I only one puzzled about MX204 port choice, 4xQSFP28 + 8xSFP+. > Seems like it's positioned to datacenters facing upstream? I'd want > 2xQSFP28 and maybe 36xSFP+ (oversub is fine), with attractive > licensing using SFP+ as SFP only, to add L3 DFZ 1GE aggregation box to > JNPR portfolio. > I

Re: [c-nsp] Juniper MX240 & MX480

On 31 October 2017 at 07:56, Mark Tinka wrote: >> In related news, I see that Juniper has announced the MX150 ("vTrio" which >> I assume means vMX on x86) and MX204 -- both 1RU. It's about time :-) > > Don't forget about the MX10003. Am I only one puzzled about MX204 port

Re: [c-nsp] Juniper MX240 & MX480

On 26/Oct/17 10:26, adamv0...@netconsultings.com wrote: > The selection of tool depends on the job to be done, and you haven't > provided any info on what you intend to use the boxes for so I can only > generalize. > If your network is carrying traffic of a single priority level or if it just >

Re: [c-nsp] Juniper MX240 & MX480

On 26/Oct/17 11:08, Dale Shaw wrote: > Indeed. > > Mark, try asking on juniper-nsp instead: > https://puck.nether.net/mailman/listinfo/juniper-nsp > > In related news, I see that Juniper has announced the MX150 ("vTrio" which > I assume means vMX on x86) and MX204 -- both 1RU. It's about time

Re: [c-nsp] Juniper MX240 & MX480

Hi Adam, On Thu, Oct 26, 2017 at 1:55 PM, wrote: > Regarding the QOS sorry my bad wasn't specific enough, I didn't mean link > congestion I mean TRIO chip overload (BW or PPS wise). Apparently this is something you are regularly having problems with, otherwise

Re: [c-nsp] Juniper MX240 & MX480

Hi, RE-S-X6-64G requires SCBE2. SCBE2 does not work with DPCs. So you cannot upgrade to newest RE with old linecards. kind regards Rolf > Hi, > > it is strange, because RE doesn't do much with line cards, maybe it > depends what kind SCB you have ... > > Best regards, > Misak Khachatryan,

Re: [c-nsp] Juniper MX240 & MX480

Hi, it is strange, because RE doesn't do much with line cards, maybe it depends what kind SCB you have ... Best regards, Misak Khachatryan, Network Administration and Monitoring Department Manager, GNC- ALFA CJSC 1 Khaghaghutyan str., Abovyan, 2201 Armenia Tel: +374 60 46 99 70 (9670), Mob.:

Re: [c-nsp] Juniper MX240 & MX480

Hello Aaron, that's not a Cisco-only "feature". You could also move from MX to new ASR boxes because Juniper told you that your old DPC cards do not work if you replace your RE-S-2000 with the newest RE (RE-S-X6-64G + SCBE2). ;) kind regards Rolf > The thing that caused me to evaluate replacing

Re: [c-nsp] Juniper MX240 & MX480

The thing that caused me to evaluate replacing my ASR9k 15-node network was when Cisco told me if I replaced my RSP-4G routing engine with newest one, all my 1st gen Trident linecards would stop working. :| So since I had to fork-lift everything , I thought it was time to re-eval what is out

Re: [c-nsp] Juniper MX240 & MX480

Regarding the QOS sorry my bad wasn't specific enough, I didn't mean link congestion I mean TRIO chip overload (BW or PPS wise). Regarding BGP implementation yes agree that's my subjective opinion I just happen to work with both XR/JUNOS BGP and now have "high" expectations from Junos

Re: [c-nsp] Juniper MX240 & MX480

Dang, MX204 has possible (4) 100 gig interfaces ... 1RU ! (I heard something about juniper summit or vale a while back...maybe that's these 150 and 204) https://www.juniper.net/us/en/products-services/routing/mx-series/compare?p= MX204 Someone is already using them, guessing a facebook fna

Re: [c-nsp] Juniper MX240 & MX480

This does not sound constructive to me. I know networks having less problem with JunOS BGP than IOS-XR BGP. I know several network running QoS in MX successfully. I am not saying IOS-XR is worse or better, I'm saying this is subjective opinion based on anecdotes. Another subjective opinion based

Re: [c-nsp] Juniper MX240 & MX480

Hi, There is a panned webinar today to present the new model : "Register now for our MX150 webinar

Re: [c-nsp] Juniper MX240 & MX480

Hi, On 26 October 2017 at 09:26, Sebastian Becker wrote: > > On 26 October 2017 at 01:54, Mark Mason wrote: > > > > Can someone educate me on the Juniper MX240 and MX480 chassis > > > > I can but I think this is the wrong list. Indeed. Mark, try asking

Re: [c-nsp] Juniper MX240 & MX480

The selection of tool depends on the job to be done, and you haven't provided any info on what you intend to use the boxes for so I can only generalize. If your network is carrying traffic of a single priority level or if it just can't get congested then you'll be fine (well you'll still have to

Re: [c-nsp] Juniper MX240 & MX480

I can but I think this is the wrong list. — Sebastian Becker > Am 25.10.2017 um 18:54 schrieb Mark Mason : > > > Can someone educate me on the Juniper MX240 and MX480 chassis; I am not > Juniper savvy but we are gaining education quickly! It 'seems' like the MX240 >

[c-nsp] Juniper MX240 & MX480

Can someone educate me on the Juniper MX240 and MX480 chassis; I am not Juniper savvy but we are gaining education quickly! It 'seems' like the MX240 and MX480 chassis have been around quite sometime. If you had brand new purchase on the horizon, would this thought concern you? Would you be