Re: [j-nsp] MX304 Port Layout

2023-07-02 Thread Saku Ytti via juniper-nsp
On Sun, 2 Jul 2023 at 17:15, Mark Tinka wrote: > Technically, do we not think that an oversubscribed Juniper box with a > single Trio 6 chip with no fabric is feasible? And is it not being built > because Juniper don't want to cannibalize their other distributed > compact boxes? > > The MX204,

Re: [j-nsp] MX304 Port Layout

2023-07-02 Thread Mark Tinka via juniper-nsp
On 7/2/23 15:19, Saku Ytti wrote: Right as is MX304. I don't think this is 'my definition', everything was centralised originally, until Cisco7500 came out, which then had distributed forwarding capabilities. Now does centralisation truly mean BOM benefit to vendors? Probably not, but it

Re: [j-nsp] MX304 Port Layout

2023-07-02 Thread Saku Ytti via juniper-nsp
On Sun, 2 Jul 2023 at 15:53, Mark Tinka via juniper-nsp wrote: > Well, by your definition, the ASR9903, for example, is a distributed > platform, which has a fabric ASIC via the RP, with 4x NPU's on the fixed > line card, 2x NPU's on the 800Gbps PEC and 4x NPU's on the 2Tbps PEC. Right as is

Re: [j-nsp] MX304 Port Layout

2023-07-02 Thread Mark Tinka via juniper-nsp
On 6/28/23 09:29, Saku Ytti via juniper-nsp wrote: This of course makes it more redundant than distributed box, because distributed boxes don't have NPU redundancy. Well, by your definition, the ASR9903, for example, is a distributed platform, which has a fabric ASIC via the RP, with 4x

Re: [j-nsp] MX304 Port Layout

2023-07-02 Thread Mark Tinka via juniper-nsp
On 7/2/23 11:18, Saku Ytti wrote: In this context, these are all distributed platforms, they have multiple NPUs and fabric. Centralised has a single forwarding chip, and significantly more ports than bandwidth. So to clarify your definition of "centralized", even if there is no

Re: [j-nsp] MX304 Port Layout

2023-07-02 Thread Saku Ytti via juniper-nsp
On Sun, 2 Jul 2023 at 12:11, Mark Tinka wrote: > Well, for data centre aggregation, especially for 100Gbps transit ports > to customers, centralized routers make sense (MX304, MX10003, ASR9903, > e.t.c.). But those boxes don't make sense as Metro-E routers... they can > aggregate Metro-E

Re: [j-nsp] MX304 Port Layout

2023-07-02 Thread Mark Tinka via juniper-nsp
On 7/2/23 10:42, Saku Ytti wrote: Yes. Satellite is basically VLAN aggregation, but a little bit less broken. Both are much inferior to MPLS. I agree that using vendor satellites solves this problem. The issue, IIRC, is was what happens when you need to have the satellites in rings?

Re: [j-nsp] MX304 Port Layout

2023-07-02 Thread Saku Ytti via juniper-nsp
On Sun, 2 Jul 2023 at 11:38, Mark Tinka wrote: > So all the above sounds to me like scenarios where Metro-E rings are > built on 802.1Q/Q-in-Q/REP/STP/e.t.c., rather than IP/MPLS. Yes. Satellite is basically VLAN aggregation, but a little bit less broken. Both are much inferior to MPLS. But

Re: [j-nsp] MX304 Port Layout

2023-07-02 Thread Mark Tinka via juniper-nsp
On 6/28/23 08:44, Saku Ytti wrote: Apart from obvious stuff like QoS getting difficult, not full feature parity with VLAN and main interface, or counters becoming less useful as many are port level so identifying true source port may not be easy. There are things that you'll just discover