Indeed, encapsulating a port speed in its name offers some convenience in
show commands, configuration groups, and interface-ranges; I would say the
value there is non-zero.

Going beyond that, how about logical tunnels (lt-), GRE interfaces(gr- and
gre), loopback interfaces (lo), Multiservices (ms-), SONET/SDH (so-) and the
various assortment?
This page seems to say that aside from PTX routers, where et- can be
10/40/100GE, et- == 100GE.
We know that's not the case as on MX204 and MX10k3, et- can be 40/100GE. I
guess they might update this page sometime..

Consider operators whose interface descriptions don't encapsulate the
relevant information, or worse still - whose operational interfaces may not
have interface descriptions at all.
In those cases it is *incredibly* useful to identify interface type by
interface name.
I would say identifying speed by name is an extension of that.

I don't see that moving to a generic prefix such as inf- is for the greater

So now we have ge-, xe-, and et- meaning physical Ethernet interfaces - and
depending on your hardware, optics, and config - *likely* 1GE/10GE/100GE,
respectively ... but, maybe not.
Now with the speed variances, at least we can still say they're physical


-----Original Message-----
From: juniper-nsp [] On Behalf Of
Chuck Anderson
Sent: 05 April 2018 20:31
Subject: Re: [j-nsp] MX204 and copper SFP?

Back-in-the-day we had fe-x/x/x for 10/100 Mbps ports.  Now we have ge-x/x/x
that can take a 100 Mbps SFP, but the name doesn't change to fe-x/x/x AFAIK.
So there is precedent for the names not changing when the speed changes.

But I do like having the ability to match ports based on speed, e.g. find
all "uplink" ports by assuming ge-* are access ports and xe-* are uplinks.
Patterns can be used within configuration groups and interface-ranges.

On Thu, Apr 05, 2018 at 01:38:46PM +0000, Nelson, Brian wrote:
> Port-foo is so archaic. 
> It's an interface, inf-x/x/x would be more germane.
> Brian
> -----Original Message-----
> From: juniper-nsp [] On 
> Behalf Of Ola Thoresen
> Sent: Thursday, April 05, 2018 3:59 AM
> To:
> Subject: Re: [j-nsp] MX204 and copper SFP?
> On 05. april 2018 10:44, Saku Ytti wrote:
> > Since of the fathers.
> >
> > 'Cisco did it'.
> >
> > I also see no value in it.
> Don't we all love that "linux" changed from eth0, eth1, eth2... to
beautiful stuff like wwp0s20u4 and enp0s25...
> Just call them port-x/x/x and be done with it.
> /Ola (T)
juniper-nsp mailing list
juniper-nsp mailing list

Reply via email to