Re: [j-nsp] Any red flags on this MX240 configuration...

2020-02-26 Thread Saku Ytti
On Wed, 26 Feb 2020 at 17:21, Eric Van Tol wrote: > I could be wrong, but the way I understand it, the original SCB only has > 80Gb/s of fabric capacity. While the 16XGE MPC will technically work, it will > only work at half capacity. For full throughput capability, you would need > two SCBs

Re: [j-nsp] Any red flags on this MX240 configuration...

2020-02-26 Thread Mark Tinka
On 26/Feb/20 17:03, Richard McGovern via juniper-nsp wrote: > In general, IMHO, if looking to upgrade older MXs, you should always at least > look at an MX204 solution too. I was thinking about this too, but that would depend on what the OP wants to use the router for. The only advice I'd

Re: [j-nsp] Any red flags on this MX240 configuration...

2020-02-26 Thread Richard McGovern via juniper-nsp
--- Begin Message --- I could tell you what that knob is for, but I would need to kill you afterwards __ I believe that knob can be set to Enhanced IP even with older SCB. I have a customer with this set, older SCB, no issues. Just sat, this knob should always be set to Enhanced IP for best

Re: [j-nsp] Any red flags on this MX240 configuration...

2020-02-26 Thread Richard McGovern via juniper-nsp
--- Begin Message --- #1, yes 16XGE module works with all varieties if SCB. I assume you already own the equipment list. I therefore 'think' your question/concern is with such equipment, any concern going from 16.2 to some later release, which I am guessing might be something like 18.4R2-S3

Re: [j-nsp] Any red flags on this MX240 configuration...

2020-02-26 Thread Dave Bell
The documentation states its supported: https://www.juniper.net/documentation/en_US/release-independent/junos/topics/concept/enhanced-mx-scb-description-mx960.html It doesn't support "Enhanced IP/Enhanced Ethernet mode" though whatever that is... Dave On Wed, 26 Feb 2020 at 14:37, Benjamin

Re: [j-nsp] Any red flags on this MX240 configuration...

2020-02-26 Thread Benjamin Collet
On Wed, Feb 26, 2020 at 03:05:16PM +0100, Marcel Bößendörfer wrote: > The MPC-3D-16XGE-SFPP even works with a 710-021523 / SCB-MX :-) On Wed, Feb 26, 2020 at 09:11:50AM -0500, Brendan Mannella wrote: > We have MPC-3D-16XGE-SFPP and SCBE working in production. Haven’t noticed > any issues. That's

Re: [j-nsp] Any red flags on this MX240 configuration...

2020-02-26 Thread Brendan Mannella
We have MPC-3D-16XGE-SFPP and SCBE working in production. Haven’t noticed any issues. On Wed, Feb 26, 2020 at 9:04 AM Benjamin Collet wrote: > Hi Alain, > > On Wed, Feb 26, 2020 at 08:46:42AM -0500, Alain Hebert wrote: > > Beside the RE-S-2000-4096-S being EOL. My experience with 16.2 was

Re: [j-nsp] Any red flags on this MX240 configuration...

2020-02-26 Thread Marcel Bößendörfer
The MPC-3D-16XGE-SFPP even works with a 710-021523 / SCB-MX :-) Am Mi., 26. Feb. 2020 um 15:03 Uhr schrieb Benjamin Collet < juniper-...@clt.tf>: > Hi Alain, > > On Wed, Feb 26, 2020 at 08:46:42AM -0500, Alain Hebert wrote: > > Beside the RE-S-2000-4096-S being EOL. My experience with 16.2

Re: [j-nsp] Any red flags on this MX240 configuration...

2020-02-26 Thread Benjamin Collet
Hi Alain, On Wed, Feb 26, 2020 at 08:46:42AM -0500, Alain Hebert wrote: >     Beside the RE-S-2000-4096-S being EOL.  My experience with 16.2 was > pretty solid. > >     We're planning to have 3 Full Routes BGP and the MPLS alphabet soup, > yadi yada. > >     We don't want 2 RE since we'll use

Re: [j-nsp] Any red flags on this MX240 configuration...

2020-02-26 Thread Marcel Bößendörfer
The things Sebastian suggested definitely make sense. Otherwise (if it's a really really really good offer), go for it. For the things you've mentioned it'll do its job well. Also, JunOS 17.3 works just fine with it btw :-) Am Mi., 26. Feb. 2020 um 14:57 Uhr schrieb Sebastian Wiesinger <

Re: [j-nsp] Any red flags on this MX240 configuration...

2020-02-26 Thread Sebastian Wiesinger
* Alain Hebert [2020-02-26 14:47]: >     Beside the RE-S-2000-4096-S being EOL.  My experience with 16.2 was > pretty solid. > >     We're planning to have 3 Full Routes BGP and the MPLS alphabet soup, > yadi yada. > >     We don't want 2 RE since we'll use 2 MX240 and there is no point to go >

[j-nsp] Any red flags on this MX240 configuration...

2020-02-26 Thread Alain Hebert
    Beside the RE-S-2000-4096-S being EOL.  My experience with 16.2 was pretty solid.     We're planning to have 3 Full Routes BGP and the MPLS alphabet soup, yadi yada.     We don't want 2 RE since we'll use 2 MX240 and there is no point to go for ISSU since the RE is EOL.    1x