Greetings, I am looking for some suggestions on alternatives to mx204. Any recommendations on something more affordable which can handle full routing tables from two providers? Prefer Juniper but happy to look alternatives. Min 6-8 10G ports are required 1G support required Thanks in advance! Mehmet -- Mehmet +1-424-298-1903
Nokia 7750 sr-1. From: NANOG <nanog-bounces@nanog.org> On Behalf Of Mehmet Akcin Sent: Thursday, 8 August 2019 3:03 PM To: nanog <nanog@nanog.org> Subject: Mx204 alternative Greetings, I am looking for some suggestions on alternatives to mx204. Any recommendations on something more affordable which can handle full routing tables from two providers? Prefer Juniper but happy to look alternatives. Min 6-8 10G ports are required 1G support required Thanks in advance! Mehmet -- Mehmet +1-424-298-1903
Thank you! Something within 2U (max) form factor :) On Wed, Aug 7, 2019 at 8:23 PM Tony Wicks <tony@wicks.co.nz> wrote:
Nokia 7750 sr-1.
*From:* NANOG <nanog-bounces@nanog.org> *On Behalf Of *Mehmet Akcin *Sent:* Thursday, 8 August 2019 3:03 PM *To:* nanog <nanog@nanog.org> *Subject:* Mx204 alternative
Greetings,
I am looking for some suggestions on alternatives to mx204.
Any recommendations on something more affordable which can handle full routing tables from two providers?
Prefer Juniper but happy to look alternatives.
Min 6-8 10G ports are required
1G support required
Thanks in advance!
Mehmet
--
Mehmet +1-424-298-1903
-- Mehmet +1-424-298-1903
It’s a bit more expensive and higher capability (1.2tb vs 400G) than the MX204. But the form factor and capability is very impressive for a little box. From: Mehmet Akcin <mehmet@akcin.net> Sent: Thursday, 8 August 2019 3:30 PM To: Tony Wicks <tony@wicks.co.nz> Cc: nanog <nanog@nanog.org> Subject: Re: Mx204 alternative Thank you! Something within 2U (max) form factor :) On Wed, Aug 7, 2019 at 8:23 PM Tony Wicks <tony@wicks.co.nz <mailto:tony@wicks.co.nz> > wrote: Nokia 7750 sr-1. From: NANOG <nanog-bounces@nanog.org <mailto:nanog-bounces@nanog.org> > On Behalf Of Mehmet Akcin Sent: Thursday, 8 August 2019 3:03 PM To: nanog <nanog@nanog.org <mailto:nanog@nanog.org> > Subject: Mx204 alternative Greetings, I am looking for some suggestions on alternatives to mx204. Any recommendations on something more affordable which can handle full routing tables from two providers? Prefer Juniper but happy to look alternatives. Min 6-8 10G ports are required 1G support required Thanks in advance! Mehmet -- Mehmet +1-424-298-1903 -- Mehmet +1-424-298-1903
Hi, SR1 (without s) is 2u high, bit it doesn't have 1G ports. It doesn't even have "native" 10G ports. Only 40/100G, with 4x10G optics for 10G. For 1G you would need a 7210 in sattelite mode, which is one extra U + $$$. Otherwise very nice box... On Thu, Aug 8, 2019, at 05:30, Mehmet Akcin wrote:
Thank you! Something within 2U (max) form factor :)
On Wed, Aug 7, 2019 at 8:23 PM Tony Wicks <tony@wicks.co.nz> wrote:
Nokia 7750 sr-1.____
Yes, good point, I was under the impression that it would take the 12 port 10/1 mda-e card but on looking closer it appears it only supports the high capacity mda-e-xp (6x100/40/10 ports or 12x100/40/10 ports) cards. This means, as you say if you want physical 10G or lower ports then a 7210-sas-sx64 would be needed which is less than ideal. -----Original Message----- From: NANOG <nanog-bounces@nanog.org> On Behalf Of Radu-Adrian Feurdean Sent: Thursday, 8 August 2019 10:50 PM To: nanog@nanog.org Subject: Re: Mx204 alternative Hi, SR1 (without s) is 2u high, bit it doesn't have 1G ports. It doesn't even have "native" 10G ports. Only 40/100G, with 4x10G optics for 10G. For 1G you would need a 7210 in sattelite mode, which is one extra U + $$$. Otherwise very nice box...
hey,
This > means, as you say if you want physical 10G or lower ports then a> 7210-sas-sx64 would be needed which is less than ideal. Or you could talk to your account team, there are some new MDAs coming for IOM-5 and SR-1 that might suit the 10G/1G requirements without breakout or satellite.
-- tarko
On 8/7/19 11:02 PM, Mehmet Akcin wrote:
I am looking for some suggestions on alternatives to mx204.
Any recommendations on something more affordable which can handle full routing tables from two providers?
Prefer Juniper but happy to look alternatives. Min 6-8 10G ports are required 1G support required
Extreme (ex Brocade) SLX9540 will do full tables from a couple providers in a local edge scenario with their "OptiScale" FIB optimization/route caching, but the whole FIB won't fit in hardware. Bandwidth is very generous (up to 48x10G + 6x100G), and prices are reasonable. You wouldn't need any of the stupid port licenses, just the advanced feature license, so it should be about 25-40% more than an MX204 based on public pricing I've seen. That would get you 24x10G + 24x1G (the rest of the hardware is all there just locked out). The SLX9650 will supposedly (if marketing and my SEs are to believed) do 4M IPv4 in hardware FIB, less if you want IPv6, too but still full tables of both with ample room for L2 MACs, next-hops, and MPLS. Bandwidth is, well, "Extreme" at I think 24x25G + 12x100G (25G breakout capable, all 25G also capable of 1G/10G). Pricing is supposedly "about double" a 9540. Be advised that the control plane SOFTWARE is NOT as mature as JunOS. It's being built up rapidly, but there's still a lot of stuff missing. I have not, so far, run into any of the weird glitches that I've seen on older Foundry/Brocade products, though, so that's good. There's also no oddball restrictions about port provisioning like the MX204 has. Control plane HARDWARE is well more than capable with something like 16GB (or maybe 32?) of RAM and a Xeon CPU. There's actually a fully supported option for a guest VM for local analytics, SDN, etc. in remote scenarios. If you just want to push packets, they're nice boxes. If you want "high touch" service provider features, I think you may find them lacking. They're worth looking at, though, if only because of the price/performance ratio. Arista has some similar boxes with similar caveats in terms of infantile software. MX204 is a very nice pizza box router for service providers. I'm not aware of anything quite like it in terms of having a mature control plane. I like the JunOS config language better than Cisco-style that most other folks use. -- Brandon Martin
Thank you! Very useful Certainly i have concerns about the software as well On Wed, Aug 7, 2019 at 8:35 PM Brandon Martin <lists.nanog@monmotha.net> wrote:
On 8/7/19 11:02 PM, Mehmet Akcin wrote:
I am looking for some suggestions on alternatives to mx204.
Any recommendations on something more affordable which can handle full routing tables from two providers?
Prefer Juniper but happy to look alternatives. Min 6-8 10G ports are required 1G support required
Extreme (ex Brocade) SLX9540 will do full tables from a couple providers in a local edge scenario with their "OptiScale" FIB optimization/route caching, but the whole FIB won't fit in hardware. Bandwidth is very generous (up to 48x10G + 6x100G), and prices are reasonable. You wouldn't need any of the stupid port licenses, just the advanced feature license, so it should be about 25-40% more than an MX204 based on public pricing I've seen. That would get you 24x10G + 24x1G (the rest of the hardware is all there just locked out).
The SLX9650 will supposedly (if marketing and my SEs are to believed) do 4M IPv4 in hardware FIB, less if you want IPv6, too but still full tables of both with ample room for L2 MACs, next-hops, and MPLS. Bandwidth is, well, "Extreme" at I think 24x25G + 12x100G (25G breakout capable, all 25G also capable of 1G/10G). Pricing is supposedly "about double" a 9540.
Be advised that the control plane SOFTWARE is NOT as mature as JunOS. It's being built up rapidly, but there's still a lot of stuff missing. I have not, so far, run into any of the weird glitches that I've seen on older Foundry/Brocade products, though, so that's good. There's also no oddball restrictions about port provisioning like the MX204 has. Control plane HARDWARE is well more than capable with something like 16GB (or maybe 32?) of RAM and a Xeon CPU. There's actually a fully supported option for a guest VM for local analytics, SDN, etc. in remote scenarios.
If you just want to push packets, they're nice boxes. If you want "high touch" service provider features, I think you may find them lacking. They're worth looking at, though, if only because of the price/performance ratio.
Arista has some similar boxes with similar caveats in terms of infantile software.
MX204 is a very nice pizza box router for service providers. I'm not aware of anything quite like it in terms of having a mature control plane. I like the JunOS config language better than Cisco-style that most other folks use. -- Brandon Martin
-- Mehmet +1-424-298-1903
I would recommend the SLX9640. 12x 100G and 24x 1G/10G ports. 4 million routes in hardware without compression. We've gotten 5.7M in there with compression. Price point is super good. Push them and they will get very aggressive on price. VERY aggressive. Aaron On 8/7/2019 10:33 PM, Brandon Martin wrote:
On 8/7/19 11:02 PM, Mehmet Akcin wrote:
I am looking for some suggestions on alternatives to mx204.
Any recommendations on something more affordable which can handle full routing tables from two providers?
Prefer Juniper but happy to look alternatives. Min 6-8 10G ports are required 1G support required
Extreme (ex Brocade) SLX9540 will do full tables from a couple providers in a local edge scenario with their "OptiScale" FIB optimization/route caching, but the whole FIB won't fit in hardware. Bandwidth is very generous (up to 48x10G + 6x100G), and prices are reasonable. You wouldn't need any of the stupid port licenses, just the advanced feature license, so it should be about 25-40% more than an MX204 based on public pricing I've seen. That would get you 24x10G + 24x1G (the rest of the hardware is all there just locked out).
The SLX9650 will supposedly (if marketing and my SEs are to believed) do 4M IPv4 in hardware FIB, less if you want IPv6, too but still full tables of both with ample room for L2 MACs, next-hops, and MPLS. Bandwidth is, well, "Extreme" at I think 24x25G + 12x100G (25G breakout capable, all 25G also capable of 1G/10G). Pricing is supposedly "about double" a 9540.
Be advised that the control plane SOFTWARE is NOT as mature as JunOS. It's being built up rapidly, but there's still a lot of stuff missing. I have not, so far, run into any of the weird glitches that I've seen on older Foundry/Brocade products, though, so that's good. There's also no oddball restrictions about port provisioning like the MX204 has. Control plane HARDWARE is well more than capable with something like 16GB (or maybe 32?) of RAM and a Xeon CPU. There's actually a fully supported option for a guest VM for local analytics, SDN, etc. in remote scenarios.
If you just want to push packets, they're nice boxes. If you want "high touch" service provider features, I think you may find them lacking. They're worth looking at, though, if only because of the price/performance ratio.
Arista has some similar boxes with similar caveats in terms of infantile software.
MX204 is a very nice pizza box router for service providers. I'm not aware of anything quite like it in terms of having a mature control plane. I like the JunOS config language better than Cisco-style that most other folks use.
-- ================================================================ Aaron Wendel Chief Technical Officer Wholesale Internet, Inc. (AS 32097) (816)550-9030 http://www.wholesaleinternet.com ================================================================
On 8/9/19 1:23 PM, Aaron wrote:
We've gotten 5.7M in there with compression.
Out of curiosity, what are you doing that has 5.7M routes in a single routing area? That's a lot of edge routes, tons of VRFs, or something.
Push them and they will get very aggressive on price. VERY aggressive.
Yes, yes they will. I've seen some distributor pricing and, while not officially under NDA, I will not mention it directly. Suffice to say you should demand at least 40-50% off list from your vendor to start with. -- Brandon Martin
On 8/9/2019 4:19 PM, Brandon Martin wrote:
On 8/9/19 1:23 PM, Aaron wrote:
We've gotten 5.7M in there with compression.
Out of curiosity, what are you doing that has 5.7M routes in a single routing area? That's a lot of edge routes, tons of VRFs, or something.
They were generated just for testing.
Push them and they will get very aggressive on price. VERY aggressive.
Yes, yes they will. I've seen some distributor pricing and, while not officially under NDA, I will not mention it directly. Suffice to say you should demand at least 40-50% off list from your vendor to start with.
I don't believe I'm under NDA either but all I'll say is that if you push, 40-50% isn't even close to what they'll do.
On Sat, 10 Aug 2019 at 00:22, Brandon Martin <lists.nanog@monmotha.net> wrote:
Yes, yes they will. I've seen some distributor pricing and, while not officially under NDA, I will not mention it directly. Suffice to say you should demand at least 40-50% off list from your vendor to start with.
You get better price from newegg for CSCO gear. -- ++ytti
On 2019-08-10 02:29, Saku Ytti wrote:
On Sat, 10 Aug 2019 at 00:22, Brandon Martin <lists.nanog@monmotha.net> wrote:
Yes, yes they will. I've seen some distributor pricing and, while not officially under NDA, I will not mention it directly. Suffice to say you should demand at least 40-50% off list from your vendor to start with.
You get better price from newegg for CSCO gear.
I've found that if Cisco is presented with competing quotes for comparable equipment (eg. MX204 versus ASR9901) then they have inventive to price their products competitively. That said, a lot of SP's in the Canadian market are moving to the MX204 because of the pricing and Cisco was late to ingest that fact internally. -- S
On 8/10/19 2:29 AM, Saku Ytti wrote:
You get better price from newegg for CSCO gear.
You'll note I said "start". As in, laugh at any vendor who doesn't immediately give you at least that much off. As Aaron mentioned, they'll go quite a ways beyond that if you let them know that you are familiar with actual, competitive market pricing factors. -- Brandon Martin
On 8/Aug/19 05:33, Brandon Martin wrote:
MX204 is a very nice pizza box router for service providers. I'm not aware of anything quite like it in terms of having a mature control plane. I like the JunOS config language better than Cisco-style that most other folks use.
The MX204 is pretty hard to beat. It fits well as a peering/transit router, as well as a Metro-E router where you need a 100Gbps ring to carry 10Gbps customers, as well as downstream cheaper routers that will do sub-10Gbps quite nicely. That said, at least for the Metro, I still believe a lighter version of the MX204, with dense 1Gbps capability, is still needed. Been asking since 2007. Mark.
On 02/09/2019 11:16, Mark Tinka wrote:
On 8/Aug/19 05:33, Brandon Martin wrote:
MX204 is a very nice pizza box router for service providers. I'm not aware of anything quite like it in terms of having a mature control plane. I like the JunOS config language better than Cisco-style that most other folks use.
The MX204 is pretty hard to beat. It fits well as a peering/transit router, as well as a Metro-E router where you need a 100Gbps ring to carry 10Gbps customers, as well as downstream cheaper routers that will do sub-10Gbps quite nicely.
That said, at least for the Metro, I still believe a lighter version of the MX204, with dense 1Gbps capability, is still needed. Been asking since 2007.
Mark.
What about handling LAG on 1Gb/sec links? That is a major showstopper if indeed it is missing: https://www.juniper.net/documentation/en_US/junos/topics/reference/configura... • On MX10003 and MX204 routers, rate selectability at PIC level and port level does not support 1-Gbps speed. • On MX10003 and MX204 routers, the interface name prefix must be xe. • On MX10003 and MX204 routers, even after configuring 1-Gbps speed, the protocol continues to advertise the bandwidth as 10-Gigabit Ethernet. • On MX10003 and MX204 routers, Link Aggregation Group (LAG) is supported on 10-Gbps speed only. It is not supported on 1-Gbps speed. -Hank
On 2/Sep/19 10:28, Hank Nussbacher wrote:
What about handling LAG on 1Gb/sec links? That is a major showstopper if indeed it is missing:
https://www.juniper.net/documentation/en_US/junos/topics/reference/configura...
• On MX10003 and MX204 routers, rate selectability at PIC level and port level does not support 1-Gbps speed. • On MX10003 and MX204 routers, the interface name prefix must be xe. • On MX10003 and MX204 routers, even after configuring 1-Gbps speed, the protocol continues to advertise the bandwidth as 10-Gigabit Ethernet. • On MX10003 and MX204 routers, Link Aggregation Group (LAG) is supported on 10-Gbps speed only. It is not supported on 1-Gbps speed.
Well, that's not ideal at all. That said, in the Metro, we don't generally support LAG's toward customers because getting policing to work reliably on them is difficult. So we wouldn't hit this issue, although I can see how annoying it would be for networks that prefer to do this. Mark.
On 9/2/19 4:49 AM, Mark Tinka wrote:
That said, in the Metro, we don't generally support LAG's toward customers because getting policing to work reliably on them is difficult. So we wouldn't hit this issue, although I can see how annoying it would be for networks that prefer to do this.
I try to avoid them in customer-facing applications, too. And in intra-network situations, I don't know why you'd be LAGging 1Gbps links anymore. But yeah, MX204 and similar LCs on the chassis platforms have some bizarre port usage/speed limitations. Juniper has a little web page to validate your port configurations, but it still seems easy to hit gotchas like this. -- Brandon Martin
On 2/Sep/19 10:52, Brandon Martin wrote:
I try to avoid them in customer-facing applications, too. And in intra-network situations, I don't know why you'd be LAGging 1Gbps links anymore.
In the backbone, we moved away from LAG's to ECMP. The only places we run Layer 2 LAG's is on switch<=>router trunks (in the edge), and of course, on peering routers facing the exchange point.
But yeah, MX204 and similar LCs on the chassis platforms have some bizarre port usage/speed limitations. Juniper has a little web page to validate your port configurations, but it still seems easy to hit gotchas like this.
You need to have regular lunches with your Juniper SE to get on top of this :-)... Mark.
The forthcoming Juniper ACX700 sounds like a good fit for metro Ethernet with 4x100G and 24x10G in a shallow 1U hardened form factor. Aled
On Mon, 2 Sep 2019 at 10:14, Mark Tinka <mark.tinka@seacom.mu> wrote:
On 2/Sep/19 11:02, Aled Morris via NANOG wrote:
The forthcoming Juniper ACX700 sounds like a good fit for metro Ethernet with 4x100G and 24x10G in a shallow 1U hardened form factor.
Do you know what chip it's running?
Sorry I have no inside info, only what's been released publicly. Aled
Does anyone use Juniper 0% finance? We're looking to upgrade from 4 x MX80s and they are a big jump. Thanks
On Mon, 02 Sep 2019 10:02:55 +0100, Aled Morris via NANOG said:
The forthcoming Juniper ACX700 sounds like a good fit for metro Ethernet with 4x100G and 24x10G in a shallow 1U hardened form factor.
Hardened? Is this just "will survive in a not-well-cooled telco closet" hardening, or something more.... unusual?
On Monday, 2 September, 2019 15:03, "Valdis Klētnieks" <valdis.kletnieks@vt.edu> said:
Hardened? Is this just "will survive in a not-well-cooled telco closet" hardening, or something more.... unusual?
I don't see specs yet, but I would expect it's the former, similar to the MX104 against the rest of the MX range. NEBS-compliances, and -40C to 65C operating temperature range (standard 0C to 46C). We've been very grateful for the latter in exchange (CO) installations - old, brick buildings weary from decades of housing Strowgers are at times hot and filthy compared to your average DC. Regards, Tim.
On Mon Sep 02, 2019 at 05:07:07PM +0100, tim@pelican.org wrote:
On Monday, 2 September, 2019 15:03, "Valdis Kl??tnieks" <valdis.kletnieks@vt.edu> said:
Hardened? Is this just "will survive in a not-well-cooled telco closet" hardening, or something more.... unusual?
I don't see specs yet, but I would expect it's the former, similar to the MX104 against the rest of the MX range. NEBS-compliances, and -40C to 65C operating temperature range (standard 0C to 46C).
For telco sites Cisco do theirs NCS-55A2-MOD-HD-S: Temperature-hardened NCS-55A2-MOD-HX-S: Temperature-hardened, conformal coated Operating Temperature -40C to +70C they don't say to what degree the conformal coating protects it but that is usually used in dirty environments (military was a common user, I don't know their target for this) brandon
1 Gig is supported on later release versions Sent from my iPhone
On Sep 2, 2019, at 1:49 AM, Mark Tinka <mark.tinka@seacom.mu> wrote:
On 2/Sep/19 10:28, Hank Nussbacher wrote:
What about handling LAG on 1Gb/sec links? That is a major showstopper if indeed it is missing:
https://www.juniper.net/documentation/en_US/junos/topics/reference/configura...
• On MX10003 and MX204 routers, rate selectability at PIC level and port level does not support 1-Gbps speed. • On MX10003 and MX204 routers, the interface name prefix must be xe. • On MX10003 and MX204 routers, even after configuring 1-Gbps speed, the protocol continues to advertise the bandwidth as 10-Gigabit Ethernet. • On MX10003 and MX204 routers, Link Aggregation Group (LAG) is supported on 10-Gbps speed only. It is not supported on 1-Gbps speed.
Well, that's not ideal at all.
That said, in the Metro, we don't generally support LAG's toward customers because getting policing to work reliably on them is difficult. So we wouldn't hit this issue, although I can see how annoying it would be for networks that prefer to do this.
Mark.
On the MX204 that is.. Sent from my iPhone
On Sep 2, 2019, at 3:27 PM, Kenneth McRae via NANOG <nanog@nanog.org> wrote:
1 Gig is supported on later release versions
Sent from my iPhone
On Sep 2, 2019, at 1:49 AM, Mark Tinka <mark.tinka@seacom.mu> wrote:
On 2/Sep/19 10:28, Hank Nussbacher wrote:
What about handling LAG on 1Gb/sec links? That is a major showstopper if indeed it is missing:
https://www.juniper.net/documentation/en_US/junos/topics/reference/configura...
• On MX10003 and MX204 routers, rate selectability at PIC level and port level does not support 1-Gbps speed. • On MX10003 and MX204 routers, the interface name prefix must be xe. • On MX10003 and MX204 routers, even after configuring 1-Gbps speed, the protocol continues to advertise the bandwidth as 10-Gigabit Ethernet. • On MX10003 and MX204 routers, Link Aggregation Group (LAG) is supported on 10-Gbps speed only. It is not supported on 1-Gbps speed.
Well, that's not ideal at all.
That said, in the Metro, we don't generally support LAG's toward customers because getting policing to work reliably on them is difficult. So we wouldn't hit this issue, although I can see how annoying it would be for networks that prefer to do this.
Mark.
On Mon, 2 Sep 2019, Hank Nussbacher wrote:
What about handling LAG on 1Gb/sec links? That is a major showstopper if indeed it is missing:
It works, but only about as well as anything else to do with 1G interfaces works on the MX204, and only then when you're running at least 18.1R3...
show version |match "(model|junos):" Model: mx204 Junos: 18.1R3-S4.2
show interfaces ae0 |match speed Link-level type: Flexible-Ethernet, MTU: 1522, Speed: 40Gbps,
show lacp interfaces ae0 |find protocol LACP protocol: Receive State Transmit State Mux State xe-0/1/4 Current Slow periodic Collecting distributing xe-0/1/5 Current Slow periodic Collecting distributing xe-0/1/6 Current Slow periodic Collecting distributing xe-0/1/7 Current Slow periodic Collecting distributing
show chassis hardware |match SX Xcvr 4 REV 02 740-011613 - SFP-SX Xcvr 5 REV 02 740-011613 - SFP-SX Xcvr 6 REV 02 740-011613 - SFP-SX Xcvr 7 REV 02 740-011613 - SFP-SX
show interfaces xe-0/1/4 |match speed Speed: 10Gbps, BPDU Error: None, Loop Detect PDU Error: None, Flow control: Disabled, Speed Configuration: 1G
It just gets more bizarre from there. Don't run 1G on these boxes if you can find any way to avoid it. -Rob
If it's not for an US company, then a Huawei NE-20 could be in order. The entry model fits 2U. Rubens On Thu, Aug 8, 2019 at 12:04 AM Mehmet Akcin <mehmet@akcin.net> wrote:
Greetings,
I am looking for some suggestions on alternatives to mx204.
Any recommendations on something more affordable which can handle full routing tables from two providers?
Prefer Juniper but happy to look alternatives. Min 6-8 10G ports are required 1G support required
Thanks in advance!
Mehmet -- Mehmet +1-424-298-1903
If you don't require redundant routing engines, there is nothing from Juniper that will cost less and have the capacity you require. In fact, there really aren't any cheaper MX options at all, other than the kneecapped MX80 and MX104 variants. MX204 is really a nice box. I only wish they had a redundant version. Is price your only concern with the MX204? You might not need the full blown -R or -IR version, so the list price would only be ~$45K. I'm not too familiar with other vendors, so I'll leave that to others. thanks, -Randy ----- On Aug 7, 2019, at 11:02 PM, Mehmet Akcin <mehmet@akcin.net> wrote:
Greetings,
I am looking for some suggestions on alternatives to mx204.
Any recommendations on something more affordable which can handle full routing tables from two providers?
Prefer Juniper but happy to look alternatives. Min 6-8 10G ports are required 1G support required
Thanks in advance!
Mehmet -- Mehmet +1-424-298-1903
45k? No no, the mx204 with enough license to do BGP is more like 20k - 25k or less. It is actually quite cheap, so I doubt the OP will find anything much cheaper without going used or do a software router. I feel it should be mentioned that a Linux box with 4x10G NIC and some random switch as port expander also will be able to fulfil the requirements and for a fraction of any other solution. Regards Baldur tor. 8. aug. 2019 06.47 skrev Randy Carpenter <rcarpen@network1.net>:
If you don't require redundant routing engines, there is nothing from Juniper that will cost less and have the capacity you require. In fact, there really aren't any cheaper MX options at all, other than the kneecapped MX80 and MX104 variants. MX204 is really a nice box. I only wish they had a redundant version.
Is price your only concern with the MX204? You might not need the full blown -R or -IR version, so the list price would only be ~$45K.
I'm not too familiar with other vendors, so I'll leave that to others.
thanks, -Randy
----- On Aug 7, 2019, at 11:02 PM, Mehmet Akcin <mehmet@akcin.net> wrote:
Greetings,
I am looking for some suggestions on alternatives to mx204.
Any recommendations on something more affordable which can handle full routing tables from two providers?
Prefer Juniper but happy to look alternatives. Min 6-8 10G ports are required 1G support required
Thanks in advance!
Mehmet -- Mehmet +1-424-298-1903
~$45k is the US list price... typical discount applies :-) thanks, -Randy ----- On Aug 8, 2019, at 2:33 AM, Baldur Norddahl <baldur.norddahl@gmail.com> wrote:
45k? No no, the mx204 with enough license to do BGP is more like 20k - 25k or less. It is actually quite cheap, so I doubt the OP will find anything much cheaper without going used or do a software router.
I feel it should be mentioned that a Linux box with 4x10G NIC and some random switch as port expander also will be able to fulfil the requirements and for a fraction of any other solution.
Regards
Baldur
tor. 8. aug. 2019 06.47 skrev Randy Carpenter < [ mailto:rcarpen@network1.net | rcarpen@network1.net ] >:
If you don't require redundant routing engines, there is nothing from Juniper that will cost less and have the capacity you require. In fact, there really aren't any cheaper MX options at all, other than the kneecapped MX80 and MX104 variants. MX204 is really a nice box. I only wish they had a redundant version.
Is price your only concern with the MX204? You might not need the full blown -R or -IR version, so the list price would only be ~$45K.
I'm not too familiar with other vendors, so I'll leave that to others.
thanks, -Randy
----- On Aug 7, 2019, at 11:02 PM, Mehmet Akcin < [ mailto:mehmet@akcin.net | mehmet@akcin.net ] > wrote:
Greetings,
I am looking for some suggestions on alternatives to mx204.
Any recommendations on something more affordable which can handle full routing tables from two providers?
Prefer Juniper but happy to look alternatives. Min 6-8 10G ports are required 1G support required
Thanks in advance!
Mehmet -- Mehmet +1-424-298-1903
On 8/Aug/19 08:33, Baldur Norddahl wrote:
45k? No no, the mx204 with enough license to do BGP is more like 20k - 25k or less. It is actually quite cheap, so I doubt the OP will find anything much cheaper without going used or do a software router.
I feel it should be mentioned that a Linux box with 4x10G NIC and some random switch as port expander also will be able to fulfil the requirements and for a fraction of any other solution.
Including the code maturity for BGP, IS-IS, OSPF and friends? Mark.
On Mon, 2 Sep 2019 at 11:24, Mark Tinka <mark.tinka@seacom.mu> wrote:
45k? No no, the mx204 with enough license to do BGP is more like 20k - 25k or less. It is actually quite cheap, so I doubt the OP will find anything much cheaper without going used or do a software router.
I feel it should be mentioned that a Linux box with 4x10G NIC and some random switch as port expander also will be able to fulfil the requirements and for a fraction of any other solution.
Including the code maturity for BGP, IS-IS, OSPF and friends?
I think the Baldur's proposal works for organisation with few and highly skilled employees. But for larger organisation the CAPEX isn't relevant, it's the OPEX that matters and managing that magic linux box is going to be very OPEX heavy. Also XEON isn't cheap chip, Jericho/PE/Trio/Solar/FP all are cheaper, significantly so. XEON does cover some segment of the market, but it's not large one. -- ++ytti
On 2/Sep/19 10:28, Saku Ytti wrote:
I think the Baldur's proposal works for organisation with few and highly skilled employees. But for larger organisation the CAPEX isn't relevant, it's the OPEX that matters and managing that magic linux box is going to be very OPEX heavy.
Totally agreed.
Also XEON isn't cheap chip, Jericho/PE/Trio/Solar/FP all are cheaper, significantly so. XEON does cover some segment of the market, but it's not large one.
Agreed as well. Years back, when we considered virtual routers on servers + a cheap Layer 2 switch to run a proper but inexpensive "small router", the servers always worked out more expensive to maintain over time. Mark.
man. 2. sep. 2019 10.22 skrev Mark Tinka <mark.tinka@seacom.mu>:
On 8/Aug/19 08:33, Baldur Norddahl wrote:
45k? No no, the mx204 with enough license to do BGP is more like 20k - 25k or less. It is actually quite cheap, so I doubt the OP will find anything much cheaper without going used or do a software router.
I feel it should be mentioned that a Linux box with 4x10G NIC and some random switch as port expander also will be able to fulfil the requirements and for a fraction of any other solution.
Including the code maturity for BGP, IS-IS, OSPF and friends?
Mark.
Maturity is such a subjective word. But yes there are plenty of options for routing protocols on a Linux. Every internet exchange is running BGP on Linux for the route server after all. I am not recommending a server over MX204. I think MX204 is brilliant. It is one of the cheapest options and if that is not cheap enough, THEN the server solution is probably what you may be looking for. You can move a lot of traffic even with an old leftover server. Especially if you are not concerned with moving 64 bytes DDoS at line speed, because likely you would be down anyway in that case. As to the OPEX I would claim there are small shops that would have an easier time with a server, because they know how to do that. They would have only one or two routers and learning how to run JUNOS just for that might never happen. It all depends on what workforce you have. Network people or server guys? Regards Baldur
On 2019-09-02 15:52, Baldur Norddahl wrote:
Maturity is such a subjective word. But yes there are plenty of options for routing protocols on a Linux. Every internet exchange is running BGP on Linux for the route server after all.
I am not recommending a server over MX204. I think MX204 is brilliant. It is one of the cheapest options and if that is not cheap enough, THEN the server solution is probably what you may be looking for.
You can move a lot of traffic even with an old leftover server. Especially if you are not concerned with moving 64 bytes DDoS at line speed, because likely you would be down anyway in that case.
As to the OPEX I would claim there are small shops that would have an easier time with a server, because they know how to do that. They would have only one or two routers and learning how to run JUNOS just for that might never happen. It all depends on what workforce you have. Network people or server guys?
Regards
Baldur
I think that such types of DDoS are much easier to solve on a server with XDP/eBPF than on MX. And much cheaper if we are talking about the new SYN+ACK DDoS and it is exactly 64b ddos case. I used multiple 82599. From snabbco discussion, issue #1013, "If you read Intel datasheets then the minimum packet rate they are guaranteeing is 64B for 10G (82599), 128B for 40G (XL710), and 256B for 100G (FM10K)." But "hardware", ASIC enabled routers such as MX might be not better and even need some tuning. https://kb.juniper.net/InfoCenter/index?page=content&id=KB33477&actp=METADATA "On summit MX204 and MX10003 platforms, the line rate frame size is 119 byte for 10/40GbE port and 95 byte for 100GbE port." or some QFX, for example, Broadcom Tomahawk 32x100G switches only do line-rate with >= 250B packets according to datasheets.
On Mon, 2 Sep 2019 at 16:26, Denys Fedoryshchenko <nuclearcat@nuclearcat.com> wrote:
or some QFX, for example, Broadcom Tomahawk 32x100G switches only do line-rate with >= 250B packets according to datasheets.
Only is peculiar term here. 100Gbps is 148Mpps, give or take 100PPM, at 250B it's still some 50Mpps. Times 32 that's 1600Mpps, or 1.6Gpps. Only implies it's modest compared to some other solution, what is that solution? XEON doing ~nothing (not proper lookup even) is some couple hundred Mpps, far cry from 1.6Gpps with ACL, QoS and L3 lookup. I don't care about wire rate on chip with lot of ports, because statistics. 250B average size on 32x100GE on a chip is fine to me. 250B average size on 32x100GE with 32 chips, would be horrifying. I'm not saying XEON does not have application, I'm just saying XEON is bps and pps expensive chip compared to almost anything out there, however there are some application with very deep touch where it is marketable. Btw. technically Tomahawk and Trio are very different, Trio has tens or hundreds of cores executing software, cores happen to have domain specific instruction set, but still software box with lot of cores. Tomahawk is pipeline box, having domain specific hardware and largely not running a software (but all pipelines today are somewhat programmable anyhow). On Trio you are mostly just time limited on what you can do, on Tomahawk you have physical hardware restrictions on what you can do. -- ++ytti
On 2019-09-02 17:16, Saku Ytti wrote:
On Mon, 2 Sep 2019 at 16:26, Denys Fedoryshchenko <nuclearcat@nuclearcat.com> wrote:
or some QFX, for example, Broadcom Tomahawk 32x100G switches only do line-rate with >= 250B packets according to datasheets.
Only is peculiar term here. 100Gbps is 148Mpps, give or take 100PPM, at 250B it's still some 50Mpps. Times 32 that's 1600Mpps, or 1.6Gpps. Only implies it's modest compared to some other solution, what is that solution? XEON doing ~nothing (not proper lookup even) is some couple hundred Mpps, far cry from 1.6Gpps with ACL, QoS and L3 lookup. I don't care about wire rate on chip with lot of ports, because statistics. 250B average size on 32x100GE on a chip is fine to me. 250B average size on 32x100GE with 32 chips, would be horrifying.
I'm not saying XEON does not have application, I'm just saying XEON is bps and pps expensive chip compared to almost anything out there, however there are some application with very deep touch where it is marketable. Btw. technically Tomahawk and Trio are very different, Trio has tens or hundreds of cores executing software, cores happen to have domain specific instruction set, but still software box with lot of cores. Tomahawk is pipeline box, having domain specific hardware and largely not running a software (but all pipelines today are somewhat programmable anyhow). On Trio you are mostly just time limited on what you can do, on Tomahawk you have physical hardware restrictions on what you can do. Of course, they are much stronger (and cheaper in $/bps or $/pps) when it comes to L2/L3 lookup, basic stateless filters, simple QoS. But can Trio perform stateful firewall filtering for millions of flows+ lot of mpps that Xeon easily handle? Thats the case of recent DDoS attacks.
On Mon, 2 Sep 2019 at 17:48, Denys Fedoryshchenko <nuclearcat@nuclearcat.com> wrote:
Of course, they are much stronger (and cheaper in $/bps or $/pps) when it comes to L2/L3 lookup, basic stateless filters, simple QoS. But can Trio perform stateful firewall filtering for millions of flows+ lot of mpps that Xeon easily handle? Thats the case of recent DDoS attacks.
No it can't, certainly domain where XEON is marketable. Technically if you could program Trio, it could do that and lot more, cheaper and faster than XEON, but you can't program it. I feel like we're at networking vendors same place where we were in early 90s with linux and GPU/NIC, vendors thought their code is secret sauce and wouldn't release specs for people to write their own free software fopr them. Hopefully we'll start seeing network specific chips enter the market with public specs, P5 compiler, no questions (signatures, contracts) asked. I'm convinced there is market that is not being addressed, who is now forced to use XEON but could use something much more efficient, if they were allowed to. Looking at JNPR's market cap evolution over past couple decades, they certainly need to figure out something new. Like how about 8-16*100GE single Trio PCI card with no-questions asked, specification released, would there be a market? I like to think there would be. -- ++ytti
On 9/2/19 6:04 PM, Mark Tinka wrote:
Like how about 8-16*100GE single Trio PCI card with no-questions asked, specification released, would there be a market? I like to think there would be. I'd be down for this.
Mark.
Oh my gosh this. Especially if the docs are truly public (i.e. available with single click-wrap "don't be an asshat" license or even something like GDFL) and not just under NDA, but honestly even if it's an NDA required as long as it's broadly available for issuance (no need to be a high-volume) Broadcom partner and allows the results of its use to be distributed as F/OSS software, I'm game. I kinda wonder if the culture at Broadcom has changed any since the merger/acquisition with Avagao. Obviously in ye olde days, you wouldn't even get the time of day from them unless you were wanting to commit to a million or so in sales. I spread my interest (and professional practice) between SP networking, industrial networking, industrial controls, and industrial computing including hardware, so this is drool-level interest for me even if I don't get to work on it directly. So much so that I've been wanting to play with an FPGA platform for this sort of thing, but there's just no compelling reason given that existing, openly-documented accelerated NICs from e.g. Intel on high-end PC hardware can basically match the performance of any reasonable-cost FPGA Ethernet switching system in useful workloads. -- Brandon Martin
I'd like to register my interest as well. I think an open hardware platform will do a lot to move the industry forward. On Mon, Sep 2, 2019, 10:09 PM Brandon Martin <lists.nanog@monmotha.net> wrote:
On 9/2/19 6:04 PM, Mark Tinka wrote:
Like how about 8-16*100GE single Trio PCI card with no-questions asked, specification released, would there be a market? I like to think there would be. I'd be down for this.
Mark.
Oh my gosh this. Especially if the docs are truly public (i.e. available with single click-wrap "don't be an asshat" license or even something like GDFL) and not just under NDA, but honestly even if it's an NDA required as long as it's broadly available for issuance (no need to be a high-volume) Broadcom partner and allows the results of its use to be distributed as F/OSS software, I'm game.
I kinda wonder if the culture at Broadcom has changed any since the merger/acquisition with Avagao. Obviously in ye olde days, you wouldn't even get the time of day from them unless you were wanting to commit to a million or so in sales.
I spread my interest (and professional practice) between SP networking, industrial networking, industrial controls, and industrial computing including hardware, so this is drool-level interest for me even if I don't get to work on it directly. So much so that I've been wanting to play with an FPGA platform for this sort of thing, but there's just no compelling reason given that existing, openly-documented accelerated NICs from e.g. Intel on high-end PC hardware can basically match the performance of any reasonable-cost FPGA Ethernet switching system in useful workloads. -- Brandon Martin
On 9/2/19 6:04 PM, Mark Tinka wrote:
Like how about 8-16*100GE single Trio PCI card with no-questions asked, specification released, would there be a market? I like to think there would be.
Oh my gosh this. Especially if the docs are truly public (i.e. available with single click-wrap "don't be an asshat" license or even something like GDFL) and not just under NDA, but honestly even if it's an NDA required as long as it's broadly available for issuance (no need to be a high-volume) Broadcom partner and allows the results of its use to be distributed as F/OSS software, I'm game. In light of the xeon cost benefit mentioned earlier, I don't know how
On 2019-09-02 8:07 p.m., Brandon Martin wrote: this fits, but with enough pcie lanes going to an appropriate number of cores, Mellanox has dual port 100gbps and 200gbps ConnectX cards. Plunk four of those cards into a suitable chassis, you could conceivably have 8 ports by 100 or 200gbps. From their site, ConnectX-6 can do various smart offload and such. ConnectX has some sort of XDP Redirect capability, so may have eBPF hardware/software offload capability. Not sure. A commit back in December indicates 100Mpps on single port and 72Mpps on dual port depending upon how things are setup. Actual routing/switching actions at those rates might be challenging but for smaller shops with pipes not fully utilized, might be an entertaining evaluation. Raymond.
By the way they now say in this KB article that they implemented a «high performance mode» for MX204 / MX10003 with some «set chassis fpc slot high-performance-mode». Anyone wiling to test? :)
Le 2 sept. 2019 à 15:23, Denys Fedoryshchenko <nuclearcat@nuclearcat.com> a écrit :
From snabbco discussion, issue #1013, "If you read Intel datasheets then the minimum packet rate they are guaranteeing is 64B for 10G (82599), 128B for 40G (XL710), and 256B for 100G (FM10K)."
But "hardware", ASIC enabled routers such as MX might be not better and even need some tuning. https://kb.juniper.net/InfoCenter/index?page=content&id=KB33477&actp=METADATA "On summit MX204 and MX10003 platforms, the line rate frame size is 119 byte for 10/40GbE port and 95 byte for 100GbE port."
Olivier Benghozi Sent: Monday, September 2, 2019 5:02 PM
By the way they now say in this KB article that they implemented a «high performance mode» for MX204 / MX10003 with some «set chassis fpc slot high-performance-mode». Anyone wiling to test? :)
Judging from mpc7 with hyper-mode I'm sceptical, but as always subject to test results. adam
On Mon, 2 Sep 2019 at 20:51, <adamv0025@netconsultings.com> wrote:
Judging from mpc7 with hyper-mode I'm sceptical, but as always subject to test results.
We saw 25% pps advantage with hyper-mode on MX10k (which supposedly is same as high-performance-mode). New linecards will be high-performance-mode out-of-box. I think this sort of microcode cleanup periodically makes sense, if you have long enough story on hardware capable of running same microcode. Usually you have to start hardware from scratch which forces the same, rewriting the forwarding plane code and paying some technology debts. -- ++ytti
Denys Fedoryshchenko Sent: Monday, September 2, 2019 2:24 PM
On 2019-09-02 15:52, Baldur Norddahl wrote:
Maturity is such a subjective word. But yes there are plenty of options for routing protocols on a Linux. Every internet exchange is running BGP on Linux for the route server after all.
I am not recommending a server over MX204. I think MX204 is brilliant. It is one of the cheapest options and if that is not cheap enough, THEN the server solution is probably what you may be looking for.
You can move a lot of traffic even with an old leftover server. Especially if you are not concerned with moving 64 bytes DDoS at line speed, because likely you would be down anyway in that case.
As to the OPEX I would claim there are small shops that would have an easier time with a server, because they know how to do that. They would have only one or two routers and learning how to run JUNOS just for that might never happen. It all depends on what workforce you have. Network people or server guys?
Regards
Baldur
I think that such types of DDoS are much easier to solve on a server with XDP/eBPF than on MX. And much cheaper if we are talking about the new SYN+ACK DDoS and it is exactly 64b ddos case. I used multiple 82599.
From snabbco discussion, issue #1013, "If you read Intel datasheets then the minimum packet rate they are guaranteeing is 64B for 10G (82599), 128B for 40G (XL710), and 256B for 100G (FM10K)."
But "hardware", ASIC enabled routers such as MX might be not better and even need some tuning. https://kb.juniper.net/InfoCenter/index?page=content&id=KB33477&actp= METADATA "On summit MX204 and MX10003 platforms, the line rate frame size is 119 byte for 10/40GbE port and 95 byte for 100GbE port." or some QFX, for example, Broadcom Tomahawk 32x100G switches only do line-rate with >= 250B packets according to datasheets.
You nailed it, Actually very few line-cards or fabric-less boxes with (run to completion vendor chips) out there do line-rate at 64B packets nowadays. -with the advent of 100G the "line-rate at 64B" is pretty much not a thing anymore... Something to consider, not because one wants to push 64B packets at line-rate on all ports but because one needs to push IMIX through QOS or filters... and the card/box might simply not deliver. adam
Adam,
On 2 Sep 2019, at 19:42, adamv0025@netconsultings.com wrote:
You nailed it, Actually very few line-cards or fabric-less boxes with (run to completion vendor chips) out there do line-rate at 64B packets nowadays. -with the advent of 100G the "line-rate at 64B" is pretty much not a thing anymore... Something to consider, not because one wants to push 64B packets at line-rate on all ports but because one needs to push IMIX through QOS or filters... and the card/box might simply not deliver.
But those are two completely different use cases. The fact that vendors (full disclosure - I work for Cisco) don’t want to optimize for 64 bytes forwarding is totally independent on how those architectures deal/manage to apply policies on the traffic. 64B traffic simply doesn’t happen apart from DDoS scenarios, so why bother at all? Customers anyway want to use dedicated anty-DDoS boxes, so apart from synthetic performance testing, pushing the architecture to be able to forward couple of mpps more just to cover the “64B” scenario means $ (sometimes $$$) just to satisfy requirement that’s usually simply not there. In other words, the fact that given architecture can’t forward "wire-rate" of 64B traffic doesn’t mean that it can’t apply QoS for IMIX pattern at wire-speed. Forwarding engine is usually different part of hardware than services, more often than not decisions are totally independent to speed up processing. -- Łukasz Bromirski CCIE R&S/SP #15929, CCDE #2012::17, PGP Key ID: 0xFD077F6A
On Tue, 3 Sep 2019 at 10:27, Łukasz Bromirski <lukasz@bromirski.net> wrote:
64B traffic simply doesn’t happen apart from DDoS scenarios, so why bother at all? Customers anyway want to use dedicated
ACK. And as such, you're not going to get DDoS on all ports at the same time. So you just need to have enough ports on a chip and even very high average packet size, is more than enough. And if you absolutely need 64B on every port, that's easy, just put putty on the remaining ports, boom. The problem is when you rock 1 chip per port and you don't get 64B. But if it's 8, 16, 32 ports per chip, 64B is simply not needed. And like you said, QoS and filters usually have 0 pps cost. Only feature that typically has pps cost is uRPF which is not really needed for anything. -- ++ytti
From: Saku Ytti <saku@ytti.fi> Sent: Tuesday, September 3, 2019 9:55 AM
On Tue, 3 Sep 2019 at 10:27, Łukasz Bromirski <lukasz@bromirski.net> wrote:
64B traffic simply doesn’t happen apart from DDoS scenarios, so why bother at all? Customers anyway want to use dedicated
And like you said, QoS and filters usually have 0 pps cost.
Not true. This is the case only in fixed pipelines. adam
On Tue, 3 Sep 2019 at 15:10, <adamv0025@netconsultings.com> wrote:
Not true. This is the case only in fixed pipelines.
Also true in say MX Trio and ASR9k EZchip, I can't immediately think of platform where ACL or QoS costs pps. ASR9k is TCAM for ACL so O(1) and MX Trio is just fast enough to not affect pps performance. QoS isn't expensive at all in lookup terms, just expensive to have the memory. -- ++ytti
From: Saku Ytti <saku@ytti.fi> Sent: Tuesday, September 3, 2019 1:38 PM
On Tue, 3 Sep 2019 at 15:10, <adamv0025@netconsultings.com> wrote:
Not true. This is the case only in fixed pipelines.
Also true in say MX Trio and ASR9k EZchip, I can't immediately think of platform where ACL or QoS costs pps. ASR9k is TCAM for ACL so O(1) and MX Trio is just fast enough to not affect pps performance. QoS isn't expensive at all in lookup terms, just expensive to have the memory.
I'm afraid I'd have to disagree. adam
Baldur Norddahl wrote on 02/09/2019 13:52:
You can move a lot of traffic even with an old leftover server. Especially if you are not concerned with moving 64 bytes DDoS at line speed, because likely you would be down anyway in that case.
indeed, and there are very few problems that might happen in practice that couldn't be solved by something with kernel development experience. Nick
On 2/Sep/19 14:52, Baldur Norddahl wrote:
Maturity is such a subjective word.
As service provider operations go, maturity.
But yes there are plenty of options for routing protocols on a Linux. Every internet exchange is running BGP on Linux for the route server after all.
Not quite the same thing, but I take your point.
I am not recommending a server over MX204. I think MX204 is brilliant. It is one of the cheapest options and if that is not cheap enough, THEN the server solution is probably what you may be looking for.
You can move a lot of traffic even with an old leftover server. Especially if you are not concerned with moving 64 bytes DDoS at line speed, because likely you would be down anyway in that case.
As to the OPEX I would claim there are small shops that would have an easier time with a server, because they know how to do that. They would have only one or two routers and learning how to run JUNOS just for that might never happen. It all depends on what workforce you have. Network people or server guys?
That's what Saku was alluding to earlier - opex is not just in the hardware. Mark.
I'll inject two of my own questions here... Assuming one can find a used mx204, what is the official juniper licensing policy? It looks like I'm going to be replacing our core cisco in the not too distant future due to running out of fib entries, and am looking at options. Am I reading the specs correctly that the mx204 should handle typical internet routing table growth for the next few years? On Wed, Aug 7, 2019, 9:47 PM Randy Carpenter <rcarpen@network1.net> wrote:
If you don't require redundant routing engines, there is nothing from Juniper that will cost less and have the capacity you require. In fact, there really aren't any cheaper MX options at all, other than the kneecapped MX80 and MX104 variants. MX204 is really a nice box. I only wish they had a redundant version.
Is price your only concern with the MX204? You might not need the full blown -R or -IR version, so the list price would only be ~$45K.
I'm not too familiar with other vendors, so I'll leave that to others.
thanks, -Randy
----- On Aug 7, 2019, at 11:02 PM, Mehmet Akcin <mehmet@akcin.net> wrote:
Greetings,
I am looking for some suggestions on alternatives to mx204.
Any recommendations on something more affordable which can handle full routing tables from two providers?
Prefer Juniper but happy to look alternatives. Min 6-8 10G ports are required 1G support required
Thanks in advance!
Mehmet -- Mehmet +1-424-298-1903
On 8/Aug/19 06:46, Randy Carpenter wrote:
If you don't require redundant routing engines, there is nothing from Juniper that will cost less and have the capacity you require. In fact, there really aren't any cheaper MX options at all, other than the kneecapped MX80 and MX104 variants. MX204 is really a nice box. I only wish they had a redundant version.
The MX80 and MX104 have no business being in any modern conversation these days :-). For what you could do with it, the MX204 is pretty neat. Juniper have never really considered the Metro in a serious way, because if they did, they'd have an MX204-1G (if you can call it that). They've lost plenty of ground to Cisco's ASR920 (and older MX3600X) on the back of this. Mark.
Mark Tinka <mark.tinka@seacom.mu> writes:
The MX80 and MX104 have no business being in any modern conversation these days :-).
Except for the other MX-80, of course, which are better than ever. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/MX-80 Bjørn
I am not certain on the value of having 1GbE interfaces natively on a $25k plus router in the year 2019. Pair the router with a nice 1RU 1/10GbE switch installed directly next to it with full metro Ethernet layer 2 feature set. Anything that needs a 1GbE inteface, attach it to that switch, give the switch a single 10GbE port to the router, and create the 1Gbps on the router as a subinterface. We have reached the point in 10GbE being so low cost that it should really be the minimum port size for a lot of things. I recently bought an Intel chipset two port SFP+ daughtercard for a Dell server (part c63dv for an old r720) on eBay for $40. On Wed, Aug 7, 2019, 8:04 PM Mehmet Akcin <mehmet@akcin.net> wrote:
Greetings,
I am looking for some suggestions on alternatives to mx204.
Any recommendations on something more affordable which can handle full routing tables from two providers?
Prefer Juniper but happy to look alternatives. Min 6-8 10G ports are required 1G support required
Thanks in advance!
Mehmet -- Mehmet +1-424-298-1903
I have to agree with Eric here. 1G should be relegated elsewhere. If you ask for something that does all these speeds you will soon ask for 10m and that’s a wide range. I would go with a 72q and if something needs 1G then add a switch or similar. Something like that Arista 7050 while EOL will cover this well and can be had for cheap. Sent from my iCar
On Aug 8, 2019, at 8:20 AM, Eric Kuhnke <eric.kuhnke@gmail.com> wrote:
I am not certain on the value of having 1GbE interfaces natively on a $25k plus router in the year 2019. Pair the router with a nice 1RU 1/10GbE switch installed directly next to it with full metro Ethernet layer 2 feature set.
Anything that needs a 1GbE inteface, attach it to that switch, give the switch a single 10GbE port to the router, and create the 1Gbps on the router as a subinterface.
We have reached the point in 10GbE being so low cost that it should really be the minimum port size for a lot of things. I recently bought an Intel chipset two port SFP+ daughtercard for a Dell server (part c63dv for an old r720) on eBay for $40.
On Wed, Aug 7, 2019, 8:04 PM Mehmet Akcin <mehmet@akcin.net> wrote: Greetings,
I am looking for some suggestions on alternatives to mx204.
Any recommendations on something more affordable which can handle full routing tables from two providers?
Prefer Juniper but happy to look alternatives. Min 6-8 10G ports are required 1G support required
Thanks in advance!
Mehmet -- Mehmet +1-424-298-1903
On 8/Aug/19 14:20, Eric Kuhnke wrote:
I am not certain on the value of having 1GbE interfaces natively on a $25k plus router in the year 2019. Pair the router with a nice 1RU 1/10GbE switch installed directly next to it with full metro Ethernet layer 2 feature set.
Anything that needs a 1GbE inteface, attach it to that switch, give the switch a single 10GbE port to the router, and create the 1Gbps on the router as a subinterface.
That's what we do for Metro-E rings that require 10Gbps to customers. Use an MX204 to upgrade the ring to 100Gbps, hand an ASR920 on one of the MX204 10Gbps ports, and feed 1Gbps customers from the Cisco. 10Gbps customers can enjoy the MX204. Mark.
On 08/08/2019 04:02, Mehmet Akcin wrote:
I am looking for some suggestions on alternatives to mx204.
Any recommendations on something more affordable which can handle full routing tables from two providers?
Prefer Juniper but happy to look alternatives. Min 6-8 10G ports are required 1G support required
No-one has mentioned it yet, so for completeness big C have the ASR 9901 (not 9001) with traditional router bits in it. A portion of the 10G ports on it are capable of 1/10G. Regards, -- Tom
One thought could be any of the virtual ones, vmx, nokia vsr, etc on lannerinc hardware. Cheep scalable and has all the interface options Sent from my iPhone
On 9 Aug 2019, at 2:50 am, Tom Hill <tom@ninjabadger.net> wrote:
On 08/08/2019 04:02, Mehmet Akcin wrote:
I am looking for some suggestions on alternatives to mx204.
Any recommendations on something more affordable which can handle full routing tables from two providers?
Prefer Juniper but happy to look alternatives. Min 6-8 10G ports are required 1G support required
No-one has mentioned it yet, so for completeness big C have the ASR 9901 (not 9001) with traditional router bits in it.
A portion of the 10G ports on it are capable of 1/10G.
Regards,
-- Tom
On Thu, Aug 8, 2019, at 16:51, Tom Hill wrote:
No-one has mentioned it yet, so for completeness big C have the ASR 9901
Weren't we talking about "decently priced" ?
(not 9001) with traditional router bits in it.
9001, while approaching EoL, can be a good solution if your needs are limited : 8x10G + 20x1G, you should get it for a good price - refurbished.
On Fri, 9 Aug 2019 at 09:09, Radu-Adrian Feurdean <nanog@radu-adrian.feurdean.net> wrote:
On Thu, Aug 8, 2019, at 16:51, Tom Hill wrote:
No-one has mentioned it yet, so for completeness big C have the ASR 9901
Weren't we talking about "decently priced" ?
ASR9901 and MX204 being wildly differently priced is market inefficiency. It's difficult for me to see, how CSCO could justify the premium for any volume order. Either sell at market or lose sale.
(not 9001) with traditional router bits in it.
9001, while approaching EoL, can be a good solution if your needs are limited : 8x10G + 20x1G, you should get it for a good price - refurbished.
Also it will never run eXR. I have no information, but I think it's reasonable to suspect the OS not being sold may receive decreasing amount of NRE. I wouldn't certainly spend my time writing code for product I'm not selling. -- ++ytti
On Fri, Aug 9, 2019, at 08:13, Saku Ytti wrote:
On Fri, 9 Aug 2019 at 09:09, Radu-Adrian Feurdean <nanog@radu-adrian.feurdean.net> wrote:
On Thu, Aug 8, 2019, at 16:51, Tom Hill wrote:
No-one has mentioned it yet, so for completeness big C have the ASR 9901
Weren't we talking about "decently priced" ?
ASR9901 and MX204 being wildly differently priced is market inefficiency. It's difficult for me to see, how CSCO could justify the premium for any volume order. Either sell at market or lose sale.
The 2 boxes not having exactly the same port count and features(9901 can do - or is suppose to be able to do - subscriber stuff - IPoE,PTA,LAC), this explains the difference. Add the fact that Cisco has customers that buy "Cisco and nothing else". And not everybody buys "enough" in order to get acceptable volume discounts.
Also it will never run eXR. I have no information, but I think it's reasonable to suspect the OS not being sold may receive decreasing amount of NRE. I wouldn't certainly spend my time writing code for product I'm not selling.
Agreed.
On 9/Aug/19 08:06, Radu-Adrian Feurdean wrote:
9001, while approaching EoL, can be a good solution if your needs are limited : 8x10G + 20x1G, you should get it for a good price - refurbished.
Although better than the MX80, those are in the, as we say in Africa, "the same WhatsApp group" :-). Mark.
On 8/Aug/19 16:50, Tom Hill wrote:
No-one has mentioned it yet, so for completeness big C have the ASR 9901 (not 9001) with traditional router bits in it.
This is the closest competitor to the MX204 as in-house silicon-based boxes go. But for me, I've always felt that IOS XR is too bloated for Metro-E applications. I actually prefer IOS XE in the Metro. Mark.
Mark Tinka Sent: Monday, September 2, 2019 9:22 AM
On 8/Aug/19 16:50, Tom Hill wrote:
No-one has mentioned it yet, so for completeness big C have the ASR 9901 (not 9001) with traditional router bits in it.
This is the closest competitor to the MX204 as in-house silicon-based boxes go.
But for me, I've always felt that IOS XR is too bloated for Metro-E applications. I actually prefer IOS XE in the Metro.
I'm afraid I have some bad news for you then, since the new metro portfolio (NCS) from Cisco is all XR. But on the upside it means better support for YANG... adam
Hello How about Juniper vMX? 8x 10G is no problem in a 2U server. Two Intel X710 NICs with 4 interfaces on each. I found this guide: https://gbe0.com/networking/juniper/vmx/ubuntu-14-04-kvm-host-setup-for-juni... Regards Baldur On Thu, Aug 8, 2019 at 5:04 AM Mehmet Akcin <mehmet@akcin.net> wrote:
Greetings,
I am looking for some suggestions on alternatives to mx204.
Any recommendations on something more affordable which can handle full routing tables from two providers?
Prefer Juniper but happy to look alternatives. Min 6-8 10G ports are required 1G support required
Thanks in advance!
Mehmet -- Mehmet +1-424-298-1903
VMX (and VSR) throughput capacity pricing is excessive once you get over about 20G from what I have seen. From: NANOG <nanog-bounces@nanog.org> On Behalf Of Baldur Norddahl Sent: Friday, 9 August 2019 9:16 AM To: nanog@nanog.org Subject: Re: Mx204 alternative Hello How about Juniper vMX? 8x 10G is no problem in a 2U server. Two Intel X710 NICs with 4 interfaces on each. I found this guide: https://gbe0.com/networking/juniper/vmx/ubuntu-14-04-kvm-host-setup-for-juni... Regards Baldur
participants (34)
-
Aaron -
adamv0025＠netconsultings.com -
Aled Morris -
Baldur Norddahl -
Bjørn Mork -
Brandon Butterworth -
Brandon Martin -
davey＠latte.net.nz -
Denys Fedoryshchenko -
Eric Kuhnke -
Forrest Christian (List Account) -
Gavin Henry -
Hank Nussbacher -
Jared Mauch -
Kenneth McRae -
Mark Tinka -
Mehmet Akcin -
Nick Hilliard -
Olivier Benghozi -
Phil Lavin -
Radu-Adrian Feurdean -
Randy Carpenter -
Raymond Burkholder -
Rob Foehl -
Ross Tajvar -
Rubens Kuhl -
Saku Ytti -
Stephen Fulton -
Tarko Tikan -
tim＠pelican.org -
Tom Hill -
Tony Wicks -
Valdis Klētnieks -
Łukasz Bromirski