Re: [j-nsp] MX204 and copper SFP?

On 6/Apr/18 21:47, Niall Donaghy wrote: > You're exactly right Saku, those are the questions to ask, the design > decisions to be made. I posit that as Juniper break this up into > type-fpc/pic/port, and there is some indication of speed in the type name, > they would do well to standardise,

Re: [j-nsp] MX204 and copper SFP?

On 5/Apr/18 10:58, Ola Thoresen wrote: >   > > Don't we all love that "linux" changed from eth0, eth1, eth2... to > beautiful stuff like wwp0s20u4 and enp0s25... > > Just call them port-x/x/x and be done with it. Arista doesn't care, which I love. It's all "Ethernet" :-). Mark. ___

Re: [j-nsp] MX204 and copper SFP?

On 5/Apr/18 10:38, Thomas Bellman wrote: > I have never understood the reason for having different names for > ports depending on the speed of the transceiver. To me, it just > makes things more confusing. > > Can someone enlighten me on the benefits of that? For Juniper, it's probably histori

Re: [j-nsp] MX204 and copper SFP?

. Get Outlook for Android<https://aka.ms/ghei36> From: Saku Ytti Sent: Friday, 6 April, 19:55 Subject: Re: [j-nsp] MX204 and copper SFP? To: Niall Donaghy Cc: Chuck Anderson, juniper-nsp@puck.nether.net <mailto:juniper-nsp@puck.nether.net> Maybe you're right. Maybe you'

Re: [j-nsp] MX204 and copper SFP?

ure to have. > > Get Outlook for Android<https://aka.ms/ghei36> > > > > From: Saku Ytti > Sent: Friday, 6 April, 19:55 > Subject: Re: [j-nsp] MX204 and copper SFP? > To: Niall Donaghy > Cc: Chuck Anderson, juniper-nsp@puck.nether.net > > > Maybe you're right.

Re: [j-nsp] MX204 and copper SFP?

Sent: Friday, 6 April, 19:55 Subject: Re: [j-nsp] MX204 and copper SFP? To: Niall Donaghy Cc: Chuck Anderson, juniper-nsp@puck.nether.net Maybe you're right. Maybe you're suffering status quo bias. If interface name should give some indication, but provably unreliable indication

Re: [j-nsp] MX204 and copper SFP?

00GE, > respectively ... but, maybe not. > Now with the speed variances, at least we can still say they're physical > interfaces. > > > Br, > Niall > > > -Original Message- > From: juniper-nsp [mailto:juniper-nsp-boun...@puck.nether.net] On Behalf Of &g

Re: [j-nsp] MX204 and copper SFP?

Chuck Anderson Sent: 05 April 2018 20:31 To: juniper-nsp@puck.nether.net Subject: Re: [j-nsp] MX204 and copper SFP? Back-in-the-day we had fe-x/x/x for 10/100 Mbps ports. Now we have ge-x/x/x that can take a 100 Mbps SFP, but the name doesn't change to fe-x/x/x AFAIK. So there is precedent f

Re: [j-nsp] MX204 and copper SFP?

Superb Chris, great to know. :) Thank you. Niall. -Original Message- From: juniper-nsp [mailto:juniper-nsp-boun...@puck.nether.net] On Behalf Of Chris Adams Sent: 05 April 2018 19:46 To: juniper-nsp@puck.nether.net Subject: Re: [j-nsp] MX204 and copper SFP? Once upon a time, Chris

Re: [j-nsp] MX204 and copper SFP?

On 5 Apr 2018, at 17:07 EAT, Chris Adams wrote: Once upon a time, Ola Thoresen said: Don't we all love that "linux" changed from eth0, eth1, eth2... to beautiful stuff like wwp0s20u4 and enp0s25... Just call them port-x/x/x and be done with it. Well, to be fair, the Linux port changes are e

Re: [j-nsp] MX204 and copper SFP?

/x/x would be more germane. > > Brian > > -Original Message- > From: juniper-nsp [mailto:juniper-nsp-boun...@puck.nether.net] On Behalf Of > Ola Thoresen > Sent: Thursday, April 05, 2018 3:59 AM > To: juniper-nsp@puck.nether.net > Subject: Re: [j-nsp] MX204 an

Re: [j-nsp] MX204 and copper SFP?

Once upon a time, Chris Adams said: > FiberStore tri-rate, chipped as Juniper. I'm getting a non-tri-rate SFP > from somebody else to test and see if that's the issue. For the archives: yes, it appears that's the issue - a third-party EX-SFP-1GE-T links up and passes traffic. You can do gig cop

Re: [j-nsp] MX204 and copper SFP?

j-nsp] MX204 and copper SFP? On 05/04/18 05:09, Niall Donaghy wrote: > Even more sad to see that 1G ports retain their xe- naming rather than > changing to ge- as you would hope and expect. Isn't the first time that's happened, IIRC 10g PICs on T640s presented as ge-x/x/x. N

Re: [j-nsp] MX204 and copper SFP?

Once upon a time, Ola Thoresen said: > Don't we all love that "linux" changed from eth0, eth1, eth2... to > beautiful stuff like wwp0s20u4 and enp0s25... > > Just call them port-x/x/x and be done with it. Well, to be fair, the Linux port changes are essentially like port-x/x/x, just without slas

Re: [j-nsp] MX204 and copper SFP?

On 05/04/18 05:09, Niall Donaghy wrote: > Even more sad to see that 1G ports retain their xe- naming rather than > changing to ge- as you would hope and expect. Isn't the first time that's happened, IIRC 10g PICs on T640s presented as ge-x/x/x. Newer kit seemed to be converging on et-x/x/x for an

Re: [j-nsp] MX204 and copper SFP?

j-nsp] MX204 and copper SFP? On 05. april 2018 10:44, Saku Ytti wrote: > Since of the fathers. > > 'Cisco did it'. > > I also see no value in it. Don't we all love that "linux" changed from eth0, eth1, eth2... to beautiful stuff like wwp0s20u4 and enp0s25...

Re: [j-nsp] MX204 and copper SFP?

On 05. april 2018 10:44, Saku Ytti wrote: Since of the fathers. 'Cisco did it'. I also see no value in it. Don't we all love that "linux" changed from eth0, eth1, eth2... to beautiful stuff like wwp0s20u4 and enp0s25... Just call them port-x/x/x and be done with it. /Ola (T) ___

Re: [j-nsp] MX204 and copper SFP?

Since of the fathers. 'Cisco did it'. I also see no value in it. On 5 April 2018 at 11:38, Thomas Bellman wrote: > On 2018-04-04 21:09, Niall Donaghy wrote: > >> Even more sad to see that 1G ports retain their xe- naming rather than >> changing to ge- as you would hope and expect. > > I have ne

Re: [j-nsp] MX204 and copper SFP?

On 2018-04-04 21:09, Niall Donaghy wrote: > Even more sad to see that 1G ports retain their xe- naming rather than > changing to ge- as you would hope and expect. I have never understood the reason for having different names for ports depending on the speed of the transceiver. To me, it just mak

Re: [j-nsp] MX204 and copper SFP?

They don't even need to be MethodE, that string just needs to appear there as vendor. I think there is some part of code which uses that vendor string to discriminate how the CuSFP does link-state. CuSFP is notoriously difficult compared to opticals. On 5 April 2018 at 02:59, Daniel Roesen wrote

Re: [j-nsp] MX204 and copper SFP?

On Wed, Apr 04, 2018 at 11:59:31AM -0500, Chris Adams wrote: > Has anyone tried a copper SFP in an MX204? With 18.1R1, the ports can > be set to 1G mode, and I can use a fiber SFP, but a copper SFP doesn't > work for me. The router sees it, but the port shows "up" (even with no > wire connected),

Re: [j-nsp] MX204 and copper SFP?

Meanwhile all I can think to ask you is, which copper SFP you're using? FiberStore tri-rate, chipped as Juniper. I'm getting a non-tri-rate SFP from somebody else to test and see if that's the issue. According to our fs.com account manager their tri-rate SFPs have a “feature” (t

Re: [j-nsp] MX204 and copper SFP?

Once upon a time, Niall Donaghy said: > Sad to see the release notes don't specify which 1G SFPs are supported. I got an answer from JTAC that listed the normal fiber SFPs but not copper. I've got a few random LR fiber SFPs in there now (a couple chipped for Juniper, a couple not) that seem to w

Re: [j-nsp] MX204 and copper SFP?

---Original Message- From: juniper-nsp [mailto:juniper-nsp-boun...@puck.nether.net] On Behalf Of Chris Adams Sent: 04 April 2018 18:00 To: juniper-nsp@puck.nether.net Subject: [j-nsp] MX204 and copper SFP? Has anyone tried a copper SFP in an MX204? With 18.1R1, the ports can be set to 1G mode, and

[j-nsp] MX204 and copper SFP?

Has anyone tried a copper SFP in an MX204? With 18.1R1, the ports can be set to 1G mode, and I can use a fiber SFP, but a copper SFP doesn't work for me. The router sees it, but the port shows "up" (even with no wire connected), and it won't actually pass any traffic when connected (both ends see