>The MX204 is an MPC7E, so whatever H-QoS is on the MPC7E is what the >MX204 will also do.
>We have used them as an edge router on a temporary basis at new sites, >with an Arista switch hanging off of them via an 802.1Q trunk, until we >can get our standard MX480 to site. They are capable for such a >use-case. But usually, we use them for peering and value-added traffic. Similar use case here but we use a QFX as a fusion satellite if port expansion is required. Works well as an small site start up option. -----Original Message----- From: juniper-nsp <[email protected]> On Behalf Of Mark Tinka via juniper-nsp Sent: Saturday, June 10, 2023 11:03 AM To: [email protected] Subject: Re: [j-nsp] MX304 Port Layout On 6/9/23 17:46, Andrey Kostin via juniper-nsp wrote: > We have two MX204s running in pair with 2x100G taken for links > between them and remaining BW is 6x100G for actual forwarding in/out. > In this case it's kind of at the same level for price/100G value. Yeah, using the MX204 like this (edge router functions) is costly on the ports it's already lacking. > > I agree, and that's why I asked about HQoS experience, just to add > more inexpensive low-speed switch ports via trunk but still be able to > treat them more like separate ports from a router perspective. The MX204 is an MPC7E, so whatever H-QoS is on the MPC7E is what the MX204 will also do. We have used them as an edge router on a temporary basis at new sites, with an Arista switch hanging off of them via an 802.1Q trunk, until we can get our standard MX480 to site. They are capable for such a use-case. But usually, we use them for peering and value-added traffic. Mark. _______________________________________________ juniper-nsp mailing list [email protected] https://puck.nether.net/mailman/listinfo/juniper-nsp _______________________________________________ juniper-nsp mailing list [email protected] https://puck.nether.net/mailman/listinfo/juniper-nsp
