> Clarke Morledge
> Sent: Friday, November 8, 2019 4:39 PM
> I wanted to resurrect an old thread about the MX204, from a year and a
> ago:
> https://lists.gt.net/nsp/juniper/64290
> My understanding is that the MX204 is a 1 RU MPC7, but with a few
> modifications. 
Yup, so be aware of the reboot requirements if you change the layout of the

> I understand that the eight 10Gig ports have been modified to
> allow for 1 Gig transceivers as well, 

> and perhaps that the QSFP ports can
> accommodate a pigtail for providing a bunch of 1 Gig connections, if
> necessary.
Haven't looked so don't know 
> The 10/40/100 capabilities of the MPC7 look great, but there are few
> cases where I need to support legacy 1 gig, and the MX204 can now handle
> that. Is this true?
Yup on the 10g for sure, but if you need 1G in volume you can pair it with a
simple 1RU switch.

> Also, I understand that the MX204 CPU and other resources are a vast
> improvement over the MX80, 
Anything is better than those old CPUs.

> and that the MX204 can handle multiple full
> Internet route BGP feeds, just as well as the MX240 REs can, without
> compromise in performance.
> The newer VM support inside the RE makes the requirements for an
> additional RE less important now, according to my understanding.
The short answer is it's complicated.
You got to compare the probabilities of different failure scenarios,
probabilities of brown failures and see if it's worth spending a significant
extra for a resilient RE, ideally you'd just use 204s in pairs if necessary.

> So, if you do not need a lot of speeds and feeds, and can live without a
> physical backup RE, the MX204 would be a good alternative to a MX240.
If you run the numbers you'll see that the mx240 even with half licensed
mpc7 cards has a significantly higher CAPEX&OPEX per revenue port. 


juniper-nsp mailing list juniper-nsp@puck.nether.net

Reply via email to