RE: Serious Juniper Hardware EoL Announcements
With the current shortages and lead times, I almost feel like I did back in the beginning of my career --- Then it was "what can we do with what we can afford" now it's more like "What can we do with what we have (or can actually get)"? Shawn -----Original Message----- From: "Adam Thompson" <athompson@merlin.mb.ca> Sent: Tuesday, June 14, 2022 12:36pm To: "Mark Tinka" <mark@tinka.africa>, "nanog@nanog.org" <nanog@nanog.org> Subject: RE: Serious Juniper Hardware EoL Announcements [Not specific to the Juniper EoLs...] I sort of agree with Mark: I've been sampling a fairly wide variety of sources in various parts of the global supply chain, and my synthesis of what they're saying is that we probably won't *consistently* have the ready availability of "stuff" (both electronic and not) we had pre-pandemic, for the rest of my career (10-15yrs), and maybe not in the lifetimes of anyone reading this today, either. Whether those sources are accurate, their interpretation is accurate, my synthesis is accurate, whether I'm listening to the right people in the first place... all debatable. I sure hope the above conclusion is wrong. One possible upside: it might slow down the incessant upgrade hamster-wheel we're all running on? Imagine having enough time to do your job thoroughly and properly... Yes, I know I'm dreaming :-). Adam Thompson Consultant, Infrastructure Services MERLIN 100 - 135 Innovation Drive Winnipeg, MB R3T 6A8 (204) 977-6824 or 1-800-430-6404 (MB only) https://www.merlin.mb.ca Chat with me on Teams: athompson@merlin.mb.ca
-----Original Message----- From: NANOG <nanog-bounces+athompson=merlin.mb.ca@nanog.org> On Behalf Of Mark Tinka Sent: Tuesday, June 14, 2022 11:19 AM To: nanog@nanog.org Subject: Re: Serious Juniper Hardware EoL Announcements
On 6/14/22 18:06, JASON BOTHE via NANOG wrote:
Saw this coming a mile away. With chips and technology progressing despite ability to manufacture, I’m certain many are going to do this.
All this will do is keep these boxes off the open market, which will simply bump up open market prices, with no incentive for the majority of folk to buy directly from the OEM.
I suspect supply chain will improve within the next 12 months, but then regress and hit a massive crunch from around Q4'23 onward. How long for, I can't say...
Mark.
On Jun 14, 2022, at 12:42 PM, Shawn L via NANOG <nanog@nanog.org> wrote:
With the current shortages and lead times, I almost feel like I did back in the beginning of my career ---
Then it was "what can we do with what we can afford" now it's more like "What can we do with what we have (or can actually get)"?
I’m definitely feeling a bit more of this - we are seeing quite a bit of mismatch as well in hardware where higher speeds are coming but without a firm consensus around optics. At least for the 400G space it seems to be largely sorted, as DR, FR and LR are all interchangeable it’s largely that receiver sensitivity which comes into scope, and the LR8 being there, but unlikely to see a lot of volume over time. Reminds me a lot of the DS3 vs OC3 vs gigE days of “what speed, how many”, but at least we have bundling figured out at this point. - Jared
On Tue, Jun 14, 2022 at 9:44 AM Shawn L via NANOG <nanog@nanog.org> wrote:
With the current shortages and lead times, I almost feel like I did back in the beginning of my career ---
Then it was "what can we do with what we can afford" now it's more like "What can we do with what we have (or can actually get)"?
Like, working on better software...
Shawn
-----Original Message----- From: "Adam Thompson" <athompson@merlin.mb.ca> Sent: Tuesday, June 14, 2022 12:36pm To: "Mark Tinka" <mark@tinka.africa>, "nanog@nanog.org" <nanog@nanog.org> Subject: RE: Serious Juniper Hardware EoL Announcements
[Not specific to the Juniper EoLs...]
I sort of agree with Mark:
I've been sampling a fairly wide variety of sources in various parts of the global supply chain, and my synthesis of what they're saying is that we probably won't *consistently* have the ready availability of "stuff" (both electronic and not) we had pre-pandemic, for the rest of my career (10-15yrs), and maybe not in the lifetimes of anyone reading this today, either.
Whether those sources are accurate, their interpretation is accurate, my synthesis is accurate, whether I'm listening to the right people in the first place... all debatable. I sure hope the above conclusion is wrong.
One possible upside: it might slow down the incessant upgrade hamster-wheel we're all running on? Imagine having enough time to do your job thoroughly and properly... Yes, I know I'm dreaming :-).
Adam Thompson Consultant, Infrastructure Services MERLIN 100 - 135 Innovation Drive Winnipeg, MB R3T 6A8 (204) 977-6824 or 1-800-430-6404 (MB only) https://www.merlin.mb.ca Chat with me on Teams: athompson@merlin.mb.ca
-----Original Message----- From: NANOG <nanog-bounces+athompson=merlin.mb.ca@nanog.org> On Behalf Of Mark Tinka Sent: Tuesday, June 14, 2022 11:19 AM To: nanog@nanog.org Subject: Re: Serious Juniper Hardware EoL Announcements
On 6/14/22 18:06, JASON BOTHE via NANOG wrote:
Saw this coming a mile away. With chips and technology progressing despite ability to manufacture, I’m certain many are going to do this.
All this will do is keep these boxes off the open market, which will simply bump up open market prices, with no incentive for the majority of folk to buy directly from the OEM.
I suspect supply chain will improve within the next 12 months, but then regress and hit a massive crunch from around Q4'23 onward. How long for, I can't say...
Mark.
-- FQ World Domination pending: https://blog.cerowrt.org/post/state_of_fq_codel/ Dave Täht CEO, TekLibre, LLC
Dave Taht <dave.taht@gmail.com> wrote:
Then it was "what can we do with what we can afford" now it's more like "What can we do with what we have (or can actually get)"?
Like, working on better software...
Like, deploying the other 300 million IPv4 addresses that are currently lying around unused. They remain formally unused due to three interlocking supply chain problems: at IETF, ICANN, and vendors. IETF's is caused by a "we must force everyone to abandon trailing edge technology" attitude. ICANN's is because nobody is sure how to allocate ~$15B worth of end-user value into a calcified IP address market dominated by government-created regional monopolies doing allocation by fiat. Vendors have leapfrogged the IETF and ICANN processes, and most have deployed the key one-line software patches needed to fully enable these addresses in OS's and routers. Microsoft is the only major vendor seemingly committed to never doing so. Our project continues to track progress in this area, and test and document compatability. John IPv4 Unicast Extensions Project
Just to put a little more flesh on that bone (having spent about a decade going to ICANN conferences): Although organized under ICANN, address allocation would generally be the role of IANA which would assign address blocks to RIRs for distribution. It's a useful distinction because IANA and the RIRs act fairly independently from the umbrella ICANN org unless there's some very specific reason for, e.g., the ICANN board to interfere like some notion that the allocation of these addresses would (literally) threaten the stability and security of the internet, or similar. Offhand (and following comments by people of competent jurisdiction) I can't see why IANA or the RIRs would resist this idea in principle. It's just more stock in trade for them, particularly the RIRs. Other than they (IANA, RIRs) wouldn't do this unless the IETF issued a formal redeclaration of the use of these addresses. Anyhow, that's roughly how the governance works in practice and has for over 20 years. So, I think the first major move would have to be the IETF issuing one or more RFCs redefining the use of these addresses which would then put them into the jurisdiction of IANA who could then issue them (probably piecewise) to the RIRs. On June 14, 2022 at 13:21 gnu@toad.com (John Gilmore) wrote:
Dave Taht <dave.taht@gmail.com> wrote:
Then it was "what can we do with what we can afford" now it's more like "What can we do with what we have (or can actually get)"?
Like, working on better software...
Like, deploying the other 300 million IPv4 addresses that are currently lying around unused. They remain formally unused due to three interlocking supply chain problems: at IETF, ICANN, and vendors. IETF's is caused by a "we must force everyone to abandon trailing edge technology" attitude. ICANN's is because nobody is sure how to allocate ~$15B worth of end-user value into a calcified IP address market dominated by government-created regional monopolies doing allocation by fiat.
Vendors have leapfrogged the IETF and ICANN processes, and most have deployed the key one-line software patches needed to fully enable these addresses in OS's and routers. Microsoft is the only major vendor seemingly committed to never doing so. Our project continues to track progress in this area, and test and document compatability.
John IPv4 Unicast Extensions Project
-- -Barry Shein Software Tool & Die | bzs@TheWorld.com | http://www.TheWorld.com Purveyors to the Trade | Voice: +1 617-STD-WRLD | 800-THE-WRLD The World: Since 1989 | A Public Information Utility | *oo*
I don't want to glorify the idea of converting multicast space by commenting on it, however you're wrong in several particulars about the relationships around the IANA. Most notably here is the issue that in relationship to what IP addresses can be handed out to who, and for what purpose, IANA is at the service of the IETF. At the end of the day the IP address registries are not that different from any of the other registries that IANA maintains on their behalf. hope this helps, Doug (Former IANA GM) On 6/14/22 8:54 PM, bzs@theworld.com wrote:
Just to put a little more flesh on that bone (having spent about a decade going to ICANN conferences):
Although organized under ICANN, address allocation would generally be the role of IANA which would assign address blocks to RIRs for distribution.
It's a useful distinction because IANA and the RIRs act fairly independently from the umbrella ICANN org unless there's some very specific reason for, e.g., the ICANN board to interfere like some notion that the allocation of these addresses would (literally) threaten the stability and security of the internet, or similar.
Offhand (and following comments by people of competent jurisdiction) I can't see why IANA or the RIRs would resist this idea in principle. It's just more stock in trade for them, particularly the RIRs.
Other than they (IANA, RIRs) wouldn't do this unless the IETF issued a formal redeclaration of the use of these addresses.
Anyhow, that's roughly how the governance works in practice and has for over 20 years.
So, I think the first major move would have to be the IETF issuing one or more RFCs redefining the use of these addresses which would then put them into the jurisdiction of IANA who could then issue them (probably piecewise) to the RIRs.
On June 14, 2022 at 13:21 gnu@toad.com (John Gilmore) wrote:
Dave Taht <dave.taht@gmail.com> wrote:
Then it was "what can we do with what we can afford" now it's more like "What can we do with what we have (or can actually get)"?
Like, working on better software...
Like, deploying the other 300 million IPv4 addresses that are currently lying around unused. They remain formally unused due to three interlocking supply chain problems: at IETF, ICANN, and vendors. IETF's is caused by a "we must force everyone to abandon trailing edge technology" attitude. ICANN's is because nobody is sure how to allocate ~$15B worth of end-user value into a calcified IP address market dominated by government-created regional monopolies doing allocation by fiat.
Vendors have leapfrogged the IETF and ICANN processes, and most have deployed the key one-line software patches needed to fully enable these addresses in OS's and routers. Microsoft is the only major vendor seemingly committed to never doing so. Our project continues to track progress in this area, and test and document compatability.
John IPv4 Unicast Extensions Project
I just have one question? Why are we discussing IP allocations and IANA in an email thread about EoL Juniper gear? On Fri, Jun 17, 2022 at 1:26 PM Doug Barton <dougb@dougbarton.us> wrote:
I don't want to glorify the idea of converting multicast space by commenting on it, however you're wrong in several particulars about the relationships around the IANA.
Most notably here is the issue that in relationship to what IP addresses can be handed out to who, and for what purpose, IANA is at the service of the IETF. At the end of the day the IP address registries are not that different from any of the other registries that IANA maintains on their behalf.
hope this helps,
Doug (Former IANA GM)
On 6/14/22 8:54 PM, bzs@theworld.com wrote:
Just to put a little more flesh on that bone (having spent about a decade going to ICANN conferences):
Although organized under ICANN, address allocation would generally be the role of IANA which would assign address blocks to RIRs for distribution.
It's a useful distinction because IANA and the RIRs act fairly independently from the umbrella ICANN org unless there's some very specific reason for, e.g., the ICANN board to interfere like some notion that the allocation of these addresses would (literally) threaten the stability and security of the internet, or similar.
Offhand (and following comments by people of competent jurisdiction) I can't see why IANA or the RIRs would resist this idea in principle. It's just more stock in trade for them, particularly the RIRs.
Other than they (IANA, RIRs) wouldn't do this unless the IETF issued a formal redeclaration of the use of these addresses.
Anyhow, that's roughly how the governance works in practice and has for over 20 years.
So, I think the first major move would have to be the IETF issuing one or more RFCs redefining the use of these addresses which would then put them into the jurisdiction of IANA who could then issue them (probably piecewise) to the RIRs.
On June 14, 2022 at 13:21 gnu@toad.com (John Gilmore) wrote:
Dave Taht <dave.taht@gmail.com> wrote:
Then it was "what can we do with what we can afford" now it's
like "What can we do with what we have (or can actually get)"?
Like, working on better software...
Like, deploying the other 300 million IPv4 addresses that are currently lying around unused. They remain formally unused due to three interlocking supply chain problems: at IETF, ICANN, and vendors. IETF's is caused by a "we must force everyone to abandon trailing edge technology" attitude. ICANN's is because nobody is sure how to allocate ~$15B worth of end-user value into a calcified IP address market dominated by government-created regional monopolies doing allocation by fiat.
Vendors have leapfrogged the IETF and ICANN processes, and most have deployed the key one-line software patches needed to fully enable
addresses in OS's and routers. Microsoft is the only major vendor seemingly committed to never doing so. Our project continues to
more these track
progress in this area, and test and document compatability.
John IPv4 Unicast Extensions Project
On 6/18/22 15:04, Robert Webb wrote:
I just have one question?
Why are we discussing IP allocations and IANA in an email thread about EoL Juniper gear?
Something about having more time to fix other softer issues we've long ignored, since we won't be busy installing any hardware :-). Mark.
So there have been some developments re: this thread. As it pertains to the both the MX204 and MX10003, Juniper have made the following amendments: * EoS = 2023. * End of new features = 2024. * End of bug fixes = 2028. * End of critical features = 2028. * EoL = 2029. FWIW. Mark.
participants (8)
-
bzs＠theworld.com -
Dave Taht -
Doug Barton -
Jared Mauch -
John Gilmore -
Mark Tinka -
Robert Webb -
Shawn L