On Fri, 9 Jun 2023 at 20:37, Andrey Kostin wrote:
> Sounds more like a datacenter setup, and for DC operator it could be
> attractive to do at scale. For a traditional ISP with relatively small
> PoPs spread across the country it may be not the case.
Sure, not suggesting everyone is in the
Hi Saku,
Saku Ytti писал(а) 2023-06-09 12:09:
On Fri, 9 Jun 2023 at 18:46, Andrey Kostin wrote:
I'm not in this market, have no qualification and resources for
development. The demand in such devices should be really massive to
justify a process like this.
Are you not? You use a lot of
Thank you very much, Jeff, for sharing your experience. Will watch
closely Release Notes for upcoming Junos releases. And kudos to Juniper
for finding and fixing it, 1,5 week is very fast reaction!.
Kind regards,
Andrey
Litterick, Jeff (BIT) писал(а) 2023-06-09 12:41:
This is why we got the
This is why we got the MX304. It was a test to replace our MX10008 Chassis,
which we bought a few of because we had to get at a reasonable price into 100G
at high density at multiple sites a few years back now. Though we really only
need 4 line cards, with 2 being for redundancy. The MX1004
On Fri, 9 Jun 2023 at 19:15, Andrey Kostin wrote:
> Can anything else be inserted in this socket? If not, then what's the
> point? For server CPUs there are many models with different clocking and
> number of cores, so socket provides a flexibility. If there is only one
> chip that fits the
Not sure, but anything shipped before May most likely would be affected, if not
into May a bit. Since we were one of the first if not the first customer to
get the fixed applied to the equipment we got at the end of March.
We never knew the real root cause outside that when it happened the
Saku Ytti писал(а) 2023-06-09 10:35:
LGA8371 socketed BRCM TH4. Ostensibly this allows a lot more switches
to appear in the market, as the switch maker doesn't need to be
friendly with BRCM. They make the switch, the customer buys the chip
and sockets it. Wouldn't surprise me if FB, AMZN and
On Fri, 9 Jun 2023 at 18:46, Andrey Kostin wrote:
> I'm not in this market, have no qualification and resources for
> development. The demand in such devices should be really massive to
> justify a process like this.
Are you not? You use a lot of open source software, because someone
else did
Mark Tinka писал(а) 2023-06-09 10:26:
On 6/9/23 16:12, Saku Ytti wrote:
I expect many people in this list have no need for more performance
than single Trio YT in any pop at all, yet they need ports. And they
are not adequately addressed by vendors. But they do need the deep
features of NPU.
Saku Ytti писал(а) 2023-06-09 10:12:
On Fri, 9 Jun 2023 at 16:58, Andrey Kostin via juniper-nsp
wrote:
Not sure why it's eye-watering. The price of fully populated MX304 is
basically the same as it's predecessor MX10003 but it provides 3.2T BW
capacity vs 2.4T. If you compare with MX204, then
On 6/9/23 16:35, Saku Ytti wrote:
I'm not convinced at all that leaba is being sold. I think it's sold
conditionally when customers would otherwise be lost.
Probably - it's a "grain of salt" situation when you hear the news.
I don't think Meta and Microsoft have not bought zero of the
On Fri, 9 Jun 2023 at 17:26, Mark Tinka wrote:
> Well, the story is that Cisco are doing this with Meta and Microsoft on
> their C8000 platform, and apparently, doing billions of US$ in business
> on the back of that.
I'm not convinced at all that leaba is being sold. I think it's sold
On 6/9/23 16:12, Saku Ytti wrote:
I expect many people in this list have no need for more performance
than single Trio YT in any pop at all, yet they need ports. And they
are not adequately addressed by vendors. But they do need the deep
features of NPU.
This.
There is sufficient
On 6/9/23 15:57, Andrey Kostin wrote:
Hi Mark,
Not sure why it's eye-watering. The price of fully populated MX304 is
basically the same as it's predecessor MX10003 but it provides 3.2T BW
capacity vs 2.4T.
That's true, but the premium being paid for 400Gbps capability that some
houses
On Fri, 9 Jun 2023 at 16:58, Andrey Kostin via juniper-nsp
wrote:
> Not sure why it's eye-watering. The price of fully populated MX304 is
> basically the same as it's predecessor MX10003 but it provides 3.2T BW
> capacity vs 2.4T. If you compare with MX204, then MX304 is about 20%
> expensive
Hi Mark,
Not sure why it's eye-watering. The price of fully populated MX304 is
basically the same as it's predecessor MX10003 but it provides 3.2T BW
capacity vs 2.4T. If you compare with MX204, then MX304 is about 20%
expensive for the same total BW, but MX204 doesn't have redundant RE and
Hi Jeff,
Thank you very mush for sharing this information. Do you know in what
publicly available release it's going to be fixed? Knowing PR number
would be the best but I guess it may be internal-only.
Kind regards,
Andrey
Litterick, Jeff (BIT) via juniper-nsp писал(а) 2023-06-08 18:03:
17 matches
Mail list logo
