Juniper hardware recommendation
Hi, Just out of curiosity, what would you recommend using for a core router/switch from Juniper? MX208,480,10K Datasheets show them all as very nice and powerful devices (although they do use a lot of rack space and side to side airflow is painful) but I’m just wondering here what most people use and how good or bad of an experience you have with it 😊 Thanks, Javier Gutierrez Guerra Network Analyst CCNA R&S, JNCIA Westman Communications Group Phone: 204-717-2827 Email: guerraj@westmancom.com<mailto:guerraj@westmancom.com> [WCG_Corp_Logo_horiz_cFullcolorHR]<http://westmancom.com/personal/> [cisco-certified-network-associate-routing-and-switching-ccna-routing-and-switching]
Hi, Javier! MX series: Full-featured – sings, dances, walks the cat, etc. But painful racking (as you noted). Very nice and comprehensive boxes otherwise. Interfaces are more expensive, but often modular and wider variety. EX/QFX series: Nice switches, OK L3 routers. Lots of limitations in MPLS and various other corner-case limitations. My personal opinion: * Skip the MX480 (and up), it’s just too expensive. Consider an EX9200 instead, which can do 90% of the same functions. (If you can afford an MX480 or MX960, by all means, get one!) * MX240 is reasonable, but dated. A pair of MX204s in HA would make more sense, to me. * Skip the MX 2k/10k series – they don’t support SFP+ interfaces! (“No 10G WDM for you!”) Also no 1G, you need a separate step-down switch for that. I don’t know what SP Juniper thinks they’re targeting with these. * 1U/2U EX/QFX are reasonable edge devices as long as you’ve verified they can do what you need. Not core-router class IMHO. * If you don’t already know that you want a PTX, then you don’t want a PTX. The product is fine, but niche, and has the same interface limitations as MX10k. * ACX: MEF-compliant mini-MX, basically. Edge device only, pairs well with an MX480 (IIRC). Top-end are exceptions: ACX5k/7k might work, depending on what you need it to do. Not normally deployed as a core router. My experience is that you never fill up an EX9208 or MX480 chassis, but the MX240 is too small. YMMV. MX480 line cards are stupid expensive compared to, well, everything else. I’m probably out-of-date on some (or much) of my knowledge, let’s see what everyone else here has to say! -Adam Adam Thompson Consultant, Infrastructure Services [[MERLIN LOGO]]<https://www.merlin.mb.ca/> 100 - 135 Innovation Drive Winnipeg, MB, R3T 6A8 (204) 977-6824 or 1-800-430-6404 (MB only) athompson@merlin.mb.ca<mailto:athompson@merlin.mb.ca> www.merlin.mb.ca<http://www.merlin.mb.ca/> From: NANOG <nanog-bounces+athompson=merlin.mb.ca@nanog.org> On Behalf Of Javier Gutierrez Guerra Sent: Friday, May 7, 2021 3:55 PM To: nanog@nanog.org Subject: Juniper hardware recommendation Hi, Just out of curiosity, what would you recommend using for a core router/switch from Juniper? MX208,480,10K Datasheets show them all as very nice and powerful devices (although they do use a lot of rack space and side to side airflow is painful) but I’m just wondering here what most people use and how good or bad of an experience you have with it 😊 Thanks, Javier Gutierrez Guerra Network Analyst CCNA R&S, JNCIA Westman Communications Group Phone: 204-717-2827 Email: guerraj@westmancom.com<mailto:guerraj@westmancom.com> [WCG_Corp_Logo_horiz_cFullcolorHR]<http://westmancom.com/personal/> [cisco-certified-network-associate-routing-and-switching-ccna-routing-and-switching]
❦ 7 mai 2021 21:14 GMT, Adam Thompson:
* Skip the MX 2k/10k series – they don’t support SFP+ interfaces! (“No 10G WDM for you!”) Also no 1G, you need a separate step-down switch for that. I don’t know what SP Juniper thinks they’re targeting with these.
The 10k can take 10G SFP+ using an adapter. It works fine, but this can feel like a waste. Something like that: https://www.fs.com/fr/products/72582.html?attribute=2692&id=80750 This is seen as a 4x breakout cable.
* 1U/2U EX/QFX are reasonable edge devices as long as you’ve verified they can do what you need. Not core-router class IMHO.
QFX10k is different from the others. From my experience, it is very capable and the "Q" versions are quite versatile (many port configurations, cheap), but Juniper is trying to push the new PTXs with the same hardware, but not the same price tag, this is a bit confusing. I don't do MPLS, so I may not see its limitations, but it supports several full views and is the flagship for BGP EVPN VXLAN implementation for Juniper. -- The devil can cite Scripture for his purpose. -- William Shakespeare, "The Merchant of Venice"
On Sat, 8 May 2021 at 00:17, Adam Thompson <athompson@merlin.mb.ca> wrote:
- Skip the MX480 (and up), it’s just too expensive. Consider an EX9200 instead, which can do 90% of the same functions. (If you can afford an MX480 or MX960, by all means, get one!)
MX240 and MX480 cost 25k list price. Sheetmetal doesn't affect your price.
If you can't fit MX960 or MX480 to your rack buy MX240.
- MX240 is reasonable, but dated. A pair of MX204s in HA would make more sense, to me.
MX960, MX480, MX240 all take the latest gen SCBE3 fabric and MPC10E
linecard.
- Skip the MX 2k/10k series – they don’t support SFP+ interfaces! (“No 10G WDM for you!”) Also no 1G, you need a separate step-down switch for that. I don’t know what SP Juniper thinks they’re targeting with these.
MX2k of course does support SFP+, considering it takes all the linecard MX240, MX480, MX960, except MPC10E. MX10k, talk to your account team, you'll have your card RSN.
- 1U/2U EX/QFX are reasonable edge devices as long as you’ve verified they can do what you need. Not core-router class IMHO.
This may require a very liberal definition of edge. Of course they are very feature and scale poor devices. But it is usually the opposite, more devices fit core role, than edge role, as edge is where the scale and features are.
- If you don’t already know that you want a PTX, then you don’t want a PTX. The product is fine, but niche, and has the same interface limitations as MX10k.
PTX is more competitor to J2 boxes, MX is more competitor to Lightspeed, Solar and FP. Like you said for EX/QFX, it is true here also. For NPU based boxes like Trio, you don't have to know very well what you're going do with the boxes during their lifecycle, it'll work whatever it'll be. For pipeline based boxes like PE/BT, you're taking much larger risk with some CAPEX benefits.
- ACX: MEF-compliant mini-MX, basically. Edge device only, pairs well with an MX480 (IIRC). Top-end are exceptions: ACX5k/7k might work, depending on what you need it to do. Not normally deployed as a core router.
ACX are merchant, BRCM J2 and below. So they have much more similar position to PTX than ACX from silicon POV, but from marketing POV they are seeking metro installations, your front-plate demand may drive you to ACX.
-- ++ytti
Adam Thompson <athompson@merlin.mb.ca> writes:
* Skip the MX 2k/10k series – they don’t support SFP+ interfaces!
https://apps.juniper.net/hct/model/?component=MX2K-MPC6E https://apps.juniper.net/hct/model/?component=MIC6-10G Bjørn
OK, enough people have pointed it out :-). Clearly I was wrong about the MX 2K family, I missed the SFP+ MIC completely. That is good to know. However, the MX 10k family still only shows as being compatible with two QSFP cards. And yes, you can get a QSFP-SFP+ breakout cable, but those don't let you use SFP+ CWDM/DWDM transceivers. -Adam Adam Thompson Consultant, Infrastructure Services MERLIN 100 - 135 Innovation Drive Winnipeg, MB, R3T 6A8 (204) 977-6824 or 1-800-430-6404 (MB only) athompson@merlin.mb.ca www.merlin.mb.ca
-----Original Message----- From: Bjørn Mork <bjorn@mork.no> Sent: Saturday, May 8, 2021 6:32 AM To: Adam Thompson <athompson@merlin.mb.ca> Cc: Javier Gutierrez Guerra <GuerraJ@westmancom.com>; nanog@nanog.org Subject: Re: Juniper hardware recommendation
Adam Thompson <athompson@merlin.mb.ca> writes:
* Skip the MX 2k/10k series – they don’t support SFP+ interfaces!
https://apps.juniper.net/hct/model/?component=MX2K-MPC6E https://apps.juniper.net/hct/model/?component=MIC6-10G
Bjørn
On Fri, 14 May 2021 at 16:33, Adam Thompson <athompson@merlin.mb.ca> wrote:
However, the MX 10k family still only shows as being compatible with two QSFP cards. And yes, you can get a QSFP-SFP+ breakout cable, but those don't let you use SFP+ CWDM/DWDM transceivers.
Talk to your account team, you can get the card you want for testing, with support in 21.2R1. -- ++ytti
Adam Thompson wrote on 14/05/2021 14:30:
However, the MX 10k family still only shows as being compatible with two QSFP cards. And yes, you can get a QSFP-SFP+ breakout cable, but those don't let you use SFP+ CWDM/DWDM transceivers. you can also get QSA adapters to convert from a QSFP form factor port to a SFP+ port. This should allow SFP+ WDM transceivers.
Nick
I did not know such a thing existed! Cool! Holy murdering your port density, though. Ouch$$$. Adam Thompson Consultant, Infrastructure Services MERLIN 100 - 135 Innovation Drive Winnipeg, MB, R3T 6A8 (204) 977-6824 or 1-800-430-6404 (MB only) athompson@merlin.mb.ca www.merlin.mb.ca
-----Original Message----- From: Nick Hilliard <nick@foobar.org> Sent: Friday, May 14, 2021 9:40 AM To: Adam Thompson <athompson@merlin.mb.ca> Cc: nanog@nanog.org Subject: Re: Juniper hardware recommendation
Adam Thompson wrote on 14/05/2021 14:30:
However, the MX 10k family still only shows as being compatible with two QSFP cards. And yes, you can get a QSFP-SFP+ breakout cable, but those don't let you use SFP+ CWDM/DWDM transceivers. you can also get QSA adapters to convert from a QSFP form factor port to a SFP+ port. This should allow SFP+ WDM transceivers.
Nick
In addition to the QSA, note that 40G LR optics are using CWDM. You can therefore get 1270, 1290, 1310 and 1330 out of the optic. Not the favorites channels, but if that's OK for you, configure it as a 4x10G on the Juniper side. -- Make it clear before you make it faster. - The Elements of Programming Style (Kernighan & Plauger) -----Original Message----- From: Adam Thompson <athompson@merlin.mb.ca> Sent: 14 mai 2021 13:30 GMT Subject: RE: Juniper hardware recommendation To: Bjørn Mork Cc: nanog@nanog.org
OK, enough people have pointed it out :-).
Clearly I was wrong about the MX 2K family, I missed the SFP+ MIC completely. That is good to know.
However, the MX 10k family still only shows as being compatible with two QSFP cards. And yes, you can get a QSFP-SFP+ breakout cable, but those don't let you use SFP+ CWDM/DWDM transceivers.
-Adam
Adam Thompson Consultant, Infrastructure Services MERLIN 100 - 135 Innovation Drive Winnipeg, MB, R3T 6A8 (204) 977-6824 or 1-800-430-6404 (MB only) athompson@merlin.mb.ca www.merlin.mb.ca
-----Original Message----- From: Bjørn Mork <bjorn@mork.no> Sent: Saturday, May 8, 2021 6:32 AM To: Adam Thompson <athompson@merlin.mb.ca> Cc: Javier Gutierrez Guerra <GuerraJ@westmancom.com>; nanog@nanog.org Subject: Re: Juniper hardware recommendation
Adam Thompson <athompson@merlin.mb.ca> writes:
* Skip the MX 2k/10k series – they don’t support SFP+ interfaces!
https://apps.juniper.net/hct/model/?component=MX2K-MPC6E https://apps.juniper.net/hct/model/?component=MIC6-10G
Bjørn
Hello! We wouldn’t be able to give any sort of answer without knowing your current and future requirements. Each model has its own throughput classes, and sometimes a full on MX router isn’t required. From: NANOG <nanog-bounces+ryan=rkhtech.org@nanog.org> On Behalf Of Javier Gutierrez Guerra Sent: Friday, May 7, 2021 1:55 PM To: nanog@nanog.org Subject: Juniper hardware recommendation Hi, Just out of curiosity, what would you recommend using for a core router/switch from Juniper? MX208,480,10K Datasheets show them all as very nice and powerful devices (although they do use a lot of rack space and side to side airflow is painful) but I’m just wondering here what most people use and how good or bad of an experience you have with it 😊 Thanks, Javier Gutierrez Guerra Network Analyst CCNA R&S, JNCIA Westman Communications Group Phone: 204-717-2827 Email: <mailto:guerraj@westmancom.com> guerraj@westmancom.com <http://westmancom.com/personal/>
I need to do MPLS (vlls), VXLAN, Multicast, full routing tables, multiple VRFs, q-in-q, QoS Anything with 1Tbs of throughput should be more than enough at this time for me I also need it to be able to support 100G interfaces, 1G and 10G Javier Gutierrez Guerra Network Analyst CCNA R&S, JNCIA Westman Communications Group Phone: 204-717-2827 Email: guerraj@westmancom.com<mailto:guerraj@westmancom.com> [WCG_Corp_Logo_horiz_cFullcolorHR]<http://westmancom.com/personal/> [cisco-certified-network-associate-routing-and-switching-ccna-routing-and-switching] From: Ryan Hamel <administrator@rkhtech.org> Sent: May 7, 2021 4:23 PM To: Javier Gutierrez Guerra <GuerraJ@westmancom.com>; nanog@nanog.org Subject: RE: Juniper hardware recommendation CAUTION: This email is from an external source. Do not click links or open attachments unless you recognize the sender and know the content is safe. Hello! We wouldn’t be able to give any sort of answer without knowing your current and future requirements. Each model has its own throughput classes, and sometimes a full on MX router isn’t required. From: NANOG <nanog-bounces+ryan=rkhtech.org@nanog.org<mailto:nanog-bounces+ryan=rkhtech.org@nanog.org>> On Behalf Of Javier Gutierrez Guerra Sent: Friday, May 7, 2021 1:55 PM To: nanog@nanog.org<mailto:nanog@nanog.org> Subject: Juniper hardware recommendation Hi, Just out of curiosity, what would you recommend using for a core router/switch from Juniper? MX208,480,10K Datasheets show them all as very nice and powerful devices (although they do use a lot of rack space and side to side airflow is painful) but I’m just wondering here what most people use and how good or bad of an experience you have with it 😊 Thanks, Javier Gutierrez Guerra Network Analyst CCNA R&S, JNCIA Westman Communications Group Phone: 204-717-2827 Email: guerraj@westmancom.com<mailto:guerraj@westmancom.com> [WCG_Corp_Logo_horiz_cFullcolorHR]<http://westmancom.com/personal/> [cisco-certified-network-associate-routing-and-switching-ccna-routing-and-switching]
You really should discuss this with you local Juniper rep in the first instance I would suggest. From: NANOG <nanog-bounces+tony=wicks.co.nz@nanog.org> On Behalf Of Javier Gutierrez Guerra Sent: Saturday, 8 May 2021 9:28 am To: ryan@rkhtech.org; nanog@nanog.org Subject: RE: Juniper hardware recommendation I need to do MPLS (vlls), VXLAN, Multicast, full routing tables, multiple VRFs, q-in-q, QoS Anything with 1Tbs of throughput should be more than enough at this time for me I also need it to be able to support 100G interfaces, 1G and 10G Javier Gutierrez Guerra Network Analyst CCNA R&S, JNCIA Westman Communications Group Phone: 204-717-2827 Email: <mailto:guerraj@westmancom.com> guerraj@westmancom.com <http://westmancom.com/personal/> From: Ryan Hamel <administrator@rkhtech.org <mailto:administrator@rkhtech.org> > Sent: May 7, 2021 4:23 PM To: Javier Gutierrez Guerra <GuerraJ@westmancom.com <mailto:GuerraJ@westmancom.com> >; nanog@nanog.org <mailto:nanog@nanog.org> Subject: RE: Juniper hardware recommendation CAUTION: This email is from an external source. Do not click links or open attachments unless you recognize the sender and know the content is safe. Hello! We wouldn’t be able to give any sort of answer without knowing your current and future requirements. Each model has its own throughput classes, and sometimes a full on MX router isn’t required. From: NANOG <nanog-bounces+ryan=rkhtech.org@nanog.org <mailto:nanog-bounces+ryan=rkhtech.org@nanog.org> > On Behalf Of Javier Gutierrez Guerra Sent: Friday, May 7, 2021 1:55 PM To: nanog@nanog.org <mailto:nanog@nanog.org> Subject: Juniper hardware recommendation Hi, Just out of curiosity, what would you recommend using for a core router/switch from Juniper? MX208,480,10K Datasheets show them all as very nice and powerful devices (although they do use a lot of rack space and side to side airflow is painful) but I’m just wondering here what most people use and how good or bad of an experience you have with it 😊 Thanks, Javier Gutierrez Guerra Network Analyst CCNA R&S, JNCIA Westman Communications Group Phone: 204-717-2827 Email: <mailto:guerraj@westmancom.com> guerraj@westmancom.com <http://westmancom.com/personal/>
Side to side airflow can be implemented in a front to rear environment with some baffling acting as intake from one side to exhaust out the other Not ideal, but doable //please pardon any brevities - sent from mobile// ________________________________ From: NANOG <nanog-bounces+stephen.myspam=gmail.com@nanog.org> on behalf of Tony Wicks <tony@wicks.co.nz> Sent: Friday, May 7, 2021 2:33:23 PM To: 'Javier Gutierrez Guerra' <GuerraJ@westmancom.com> Cc: nanog@nanog.org <nanog@nanog.org> Subject: RE: Juniper hardware recommendation You really should discuss this with you local Juniper rep in the first instance I would suggest. From: NANOG <nanog-bounces+tony=wicks.co.nz@nanog.org> On Behalf Of Javier Gutierrez Guerra Sent: Saturday, 8 May 2021 9:28 am To: ryan@rkhtech.org; nanog@nanog.org Subject: RE: Juniper hardware recommendation I need to do MPLS (vlls), VXLAN, Multicast, full routing tables, multiple VRFs, q-in-q, QoS Anything with 1Tbs of throughput should be more than enough at this time for me I also need it to be able to support 100G interfaces, 1G and 10G Javier Gutierrez Guerra Network Analyst CCNA R&S, JNCIA Westman Communications Group Phone: 204-717-2827 Email: guerraj@westmancom.com<mailto:guerraj@westmancom.com> [WCG_Corp_Logo_horiz_cFullcolorHR]<http://westmancom.com/personal/> [cisco-certified-network-associate-routing-and-switching-ccna-routing-and-switching] From: Ryan Hamel <administrator@rkhtech.org<mailto:administrator@rkhtech.org>> Sent: May 7, 2021 4:23 PM To: Javier Gutierrez Guerra <GuerraJ@westmancom.com<mailto:GuerraJ@westmancom.com>>; nanog@nanog.org<mailto:nanog@nanog.org> Subject: RE: Juniper hardware recommendation CAUTION: This email is from an external source. Do not click links or open attachments unless you recognize the sender and know the content is safe. Hello! We wouldn’t be able to give any sort of answer without knowing your current and future requirements. Each model has its own throughput classes, and sometimes a full on MX router isn’t required. From: NANOG <nanog-bounces+ryan=rkhtech.org@nanog.org<mailto:nanog-bounces+ryan=rkhtech.org@nanog.org>> On Behalf Of Javier Gutierrez Guerra Sent: Friday, May 7, 2021 1:55 PM To: nanog@nanog.org<mailto:nanog@nanog.org> Subject: Juniper hardware recommendation Hi, Just out of curiosity, what would you recommend using for a core router/switch from Juniper? MX208,480,10K Datasheets show them all as very nice and powerful devices (although they do use a lot of rack space and side to side airflow is painful) but I’m just wondering here what most people use and how good or bad of an experience you have with it ?? Thanks, Javier Gutierrez Guerra Network Analyst CCNA R&S, JNCIA Westman Communications Group Phone: 204-717-2827 Email: guerraj@westmancom.com<mailto:guerraj@westmancom.com> [WCG_Corp_Logo_horiz_cFullcolorHR]<http://westmancom.com/personal/> [cisco-certified-network-associate-routing-and-switching-ccna-routing-and-switching]
On 5/7/21 23:28, Javier Gutierrez Guerra wrote:
I need to do MPLS (vlls), VXLAN, Multicast, full routing tables, multiple VRFs, q-in-q, QoS
If it's a typical MPLS-based, BGP-free(ish) core router, you probably don't need it to do all of those things. If it's a collapsed core (P/PE), then yes, you might. Mark.
We are using MX204's as our internet routers and I want to replace our ASR's with them to be used as an aggregate circuit router. With the amount of 10G/40G/100G interface and the price point we have been happy with them. The big issue was learning Junos since we are cisco shop ________________________________ From: NANOG <nanog-bounces+jamann=mt.gov@nanog.org> on behalf of Javier Gutierrez Guerra <GuerraJ@westmancom.com> Sent: Friday, May 7, 2021 2:54 PM To: nanog@nanog.org <nanog@nanog.org> Subject: [EXTERNAL] Juniper hardware recommendation Hi, Just out of curiosity, what would you recommend using for a core router/switch from Juniper? MX208,480,10K Datasheets show them all as very nice and powerful devices (although they do use a lot of rack space and side to side airflow is painful) but I’m just wondering here what most people use and how good or bad of an experience you have with it 😊 Thanks, Javier Gutierrez Guerra Network Analyst CCNA R&S, JNCIA Westman Communications Group Phone: 204-717-2827 Email: guerraj@westmancom.com<mailto:guerraj@westmancom.com> [WCG_Corp_Logo_horiz_cFullcolorHR] [westmancom.com]<https://urldefense.com/v3/__http://westmancom.com/personal/__;!!GaaboA!6AsW_cV0ldxQvgWOj74c5r6ZhxxrGij-4MBMmTsQeTcal1uU0NWtC3JqkFRc9A$> [cisco-certified-network-associate-routing-and-switching-ccna-routing-and-switching]
Yeah, Routers for the whole Alphabet Soup. MX204, MX960 are pretty much headache free. Heck even MX240 could be a good start if you are on a budget. ( Watch for the EoL ) Distribution ( MPLS Alphabet Soup without VXLAN/EVPN ) QFX5100 made us feel like being full time members of the Juniper QA Team. But once your find ALL the limitation of their chipset, they won't fail you. ( Chipset limitations are not always handled by the configuration and rendered ports unusable until the device is rebooted ... Or make you wonder why the heck it ain't working until you find some notes in an obscure PR ) We're going up to 100Gbps (and then 200Gbps) in distribution and we're feeling good about the QFX being able to handle it. PS: EVPN worked well in the Lab, but we're no using in our "scheme". ----- Alain Hebert ahebert@pubnix.net PubNIX Inc. 50 boul. St-Charles P.O. Box 26770 Beaconsfield, Quebec H9W 6G7 Tel: 514-990-5911 http://www.pubnix.net Fax: 514-990-9443 On 5/7/21 6:56 PM, Mann, Jason via NANOG wrote:
We are using MX204's as our internet routers and I want to replace our ASR's with them to be used as an aggregate circuit router. With the amount of 10G/40G/100G interface and the price point we have been happy with them. The big issue was learning Junos since we are cisco shop
------------------------------------------------------------------------ *From:* NANOG <nanog-bounces+jamann=mt.gov@nanog.org> on behalf of Javier Gutierrez Guerra <GuerraJ@westmancom.com> *Sent:* Friday, May 7, 2021 2:54 PM *To:* nanog@nanog.org <nanog@nanog.org> *Subject:* [EXTERNAL] Juniper hardware recommendation
Hi,
Just out of curiosity, what would you recommend using for a core router/switch from Juniper?
MX208,480,10K
Datasheets show them all as very nice and powerful devices (although they do use a lot of rack space and side to side airflow is painful) but I’m just wondering here what most people use and how good or bad of an experience you have with it 😊
Thanks,
Javier Gutierrez Guerra
Network Analyst
CCNA R&S, JNCIA
Westman Communications Group
Phone: 204-717-2827
Email: guerraj@westmancom.com <mailto:guerraj@westmancom.com>
WCG_Corp_Logo_horiz_cFullcolorHR [westmancom.com] <https://urldefense.com/v3/__http://westmancom.com/personal/__;!!GaaboA!6AsW_cV0ldxQvgWOj74c5r6ZhxxrGij-4MBMmTsQeTcal1uU0NWtC3JqkFRc9A$>
cisco-certified-network-associate-routing-and-switching-ccna-routing-and-switching
On 5/8/21 00:56, Mann, Jason via NANOG wrote:
We are using MX204's as our internet routers and I want to replace our ASR's with them to be used as an aggregate circuit router. With the amount of 10G/40G/100G interface and the price point we have been happy with them. The big issue was learning Junos since we are cisco shop
Terribly happy with the MX204. We've been running them for nearly 2 years now. I just wish Juniper could make an MX204-lite, one with more 10Gbps port density, e.t.c. We run it as a peering and Metro-E router. Mark.
Hi Mark, PTX series are dedicated for core backbone like "P Provider" probably you just using it like "PE Provider Edge" in this role is much better than the MX series. My 2 cents Ciao, ----- Marco Paesani Skype: mpaesani Mobile: +39 348 6019349 Success depends on the right choice ! Email: marco@paesani.it Il giorno sab 8 mag 2021 alle ore 09:17 Mark Tinka <mark@tinka.africa> ha scritto:
On 5/8/21 00:56, Mann, Jason via NANOG wrote:
We are using MX204's as our internet routers and I want to replace our ASR's with them to be used as an aggregate circuit router. With the amount of 10G/40G/100G interface and the price point we have been happy with them. The big issue was learning Junos since we are cisco shop
Terribly happy with the MX204. We've been running them for nearly 2 years now.
I just wish Juniper could make an MX204-lite, one with more 10Gbps port density, e.t.c.
We run it as a peering and Metro-E router.
Mark.
On 5/8/21 09:22, Marco Paesani wrote:
Hi Mark, PTX series are dedicated for core backbone like "P Provider"...
Yes, this is what we are using it for.
probably you just using it like "PE Provider Edge" in this role is much better than the MX series.
Not this. We have the MX480 for that role. Mark.
lør. 8. maj 2021 09.16 skrev Mark Tinka <mark@tinka.africa>:
I just wish Juniper could make an MX204-lite, one with more 10Gbps port density, e.t.c.
Maybe they did in the ACX710? Does most things except full routing table. We use mx204 to carry the full tables and handle ip transit. And ACX5448 + ACX710 with evpn, vpls, l3vpn and internal Internet tables. Regards Baldur
On 5/8/21 22:50, Baldur Norddahl wrote:
Maybe they did in the ACX710? Does most things except full routing table.
We looked at it. Apart from supporting only DC power (which we don't like), it's Broadcom. Granted, there's a whole new line of ACX7XXX boxes they are putting out, one of which we shall be testing. So I'm giving Broadcom a chance. Mark.
lør. 8. maj 2021 22.56 skrev Mark Tinka <mark@tinka.africa>:
On 5/8/21 22:50, Baldur Norddahl wrote:
Maybe they did in the ACX710? Does most things except full routing table.
We looked at it. Apart from supporting only DC power (which we don't like), it's Broadcom.
Granted, there's a whole new line of ACX7XXX boxes they are putting out, one of which we shall be testing. So I'm giving Broadcom a chance.
Mark.
It is possible to get a 48V 6A DC power supply as a power brick laptop style. Just look at it as an external psu :-) I will admit that we use them with 48 volt battery banks the way intended. It has become extremely cheap and easy to make your own with lithium iron phosphate batteries. Regards Baldur
On 5/8/21 23:37, Baldur Norddahl wrote:
It is possible to get a 48V 6A DC power supply as a power brick laptop style. Just look at it as an external psu :-)
For the number of units we'd need to deploy, it doesn't make sense for us. Easier to buy a UPS than try to convert AC to DC.
I will admit that we use them with 48 volt battery banks the way intended. It has become extremely cheap and easy to make your own with lithium iron phosphate batteries.
Yeah - I stopped messing around with DC for routers, switches and servers in 2007. Not going back to those days. 3 simple pins and a wall plug is all I need. Mark.
I prefer MX204 over the ACX5048. The ACX5048 can’t add L3 interface to an mpls layer 2 type of service. There are other limitations to the ACX5048 that cause me to want to possibly replace them with MX204’s. But in defense of the ACX5048, we have gotten some good mileage (a few years now) of good resi/busi bb over vrf’s and also carrier ethernet for businesses and lots of cell backhaul… so they are good for that. I’ve heard the ACX5448 was even better. I’m looking at the MX240 for the SCB3E MPC10E hefty with 100 gig ports -Aaron
On 5/10/21 16:19, aaron1@gvtc.com wrote:
I prefer MX204 over the ACX5048. The ACX5048 can’t add L3 interface to an mpls layer 2 type of service. There are other limitations to the ACX5048 that cause me to want to possibly replace them with MX204’s. But in defense of the ACX5048, we have gotten some good mileage (a few years now) of good resi/busi bb over vrf’s and also carrier ethernet for businesses and lots of cell backhaul… so they are good for that. I’ve heard the ACX5448 was even better.
Trio will always provide better features, but come with the price tag to boot.
I’m looking at the MX240 for the SCB3E MPC10E hefty with 100 gig ports
You might want to look at the MX10003, in that case, as well. We are deploying those for 100Gbps service (customer-facing). Works out cheaper than offering 100Gbps service on the MX240/480/960 for the same task. Mark.
Thanks Mark. We have a ring of MX960’s currently and wanted to spare the parts with each other, between the 960’s and 240’s…. scb’s, re’s, mpc’s… -Aaron
man. 10. maj 2021 16.20 skrev <aaron1@gvtc.com>:
I prefer MX204 over the ACX5048. The ACX5048 can’t add L3 interface to an mpls layer 2 type of service. There are other limitations to the ACX5048 that cause me to want to possibly replace them with MX204’s. But in defense of the ACX5048, we have gotten some good mileage (a few years now) of good resi/busi bb over vrf’s and also carrier ethernet for businesses and lots of cell backhaul… so they are good for that. I’ve heard the ACX5448 was even better.
It is my understanding that acx5448 is much more capable than the older acx5048. It will definitely do both l2vpn and l3vpn on mpls (what we use acx5448 / acx710 for). The main limitation is that it will not do full dfz table and not more exotic stuff like subscriber management. Regards Baldur
participants (15)
-
aaron1＠gvtc.com -
Adam Thompson -
Alain Hebert -
Baldur Norddahl -
Bjørn Mork -
Javier Gutierrez Guerra -
Mann, Jason -
Marco Paesani -
Mark Tinka -
Nick Hilliard -
Ryan Hamel -
Saku Ytti -
Stephen M -
Tony Wicks -
Vincent Bernat