Regarding CWDM/DWDM, you could always add a QFX5110-48SH as a port extender box to the MX204 with Junos Fusion Provider Edge and sacrifice one or two 100G QSFP28 ports on the MX204. That way you'd have 2x100G and 48x 1/10G SFP+ ports with a bit of oversubscription in 2RU. Does anyone know if you can use the onboard 8x SFP+ ports on the MX204 in case you use all four QSFP28 ports in 100G mode? (With a bit of oversubscription?)
Btw, pricing per 100G on the MX204 and MX10003 seems pretty good compared to the other MX boxes and ASR9K. Regards, Chris On 31.10.17 11:08, [email protected] wrote: >> Am I only one puzzled about MX204 port choice, 4xQSFP28 + 8xSFP+. >> Seems like it's positioned to datacenters facing upstream? I'd want >> 2xQSFP28 and maybe 36xSFP+ (oversub is fine), with attractive >> licensing using SFP+ as SFP only, to add L3 DFZ 1GE aggregation box to >> JNPR portfolio. >> I can't imagine rolling this would be expensive, call it MX202 o >> something. JNPR do me a solid. > > We discussed this with Juniper. We're hearing a lot about space available > on the faceplate versus number of ports desired. However, the MX204 feels > mostly irrelevant for us because splitter cables for 10G are not usable > (since we have quite a bit CWDM/DWDM optics directly in our routers). > > If faceplate space is the issue we would actually be much happier with a > 2RU box - especially if they could reduce depth to 30 cm or thereabouts. > > Steinar Haug, Nethelp consulting, [email protected] > _______________________________________________ > cisco-nsp mailing list [email protected] > https://puck.nether.net/mailman/listinfo/cisco-nsp > archive at http://puck.nether.net/pipermail/cisco-nsp/ > _______________________________________________ cisco-nsp mailing list [email protected] https://puck.nether.net/mailman/listinfo/cisco-nsp archive at http://puck.nether.net/pipermail/cisco-nsp/
