Re: IP Planning and Modelling Tools
Pascal Could you elaborate a bit more? Maybe some desired features or industry. On Wed, Aug 23, 2023 at 3:04 AM Pascal Masha wrote: > Hello Folks, > > Any good alternatives to Ciena Blue Planet out there? > > Regards, > Paschal Masha > -- - Andrew "lathama" Latham -
Re: MX204 Virtual Chassis Setup
On 8/23/23 18:29, t...@pelican.org wrote: Not Trio, and different PLM :) Yes, aware... I was just speaking in general for what is likely to be a very popular platform :-). MX304 (well, strictly LMIC16) has the same restriction, and a need for another entry in the magic port checker (https://apps.juniper.net/home/port-checker/index.html) for restrictions beyond "SUM(port-speeds) <= 1.6T". Yep. That trick they did where you can live with one RE and get 3 MIC's in the MX304 is... well, I guess everyone will have their own opinion. They make sense once you've looked at the block diagram for the thing and followed the lines, but things like "4x10G breakout can only go in odd-numbered ports, and you have to leave the corresponding next-lowest even-numbered port empty" are not instantly obvious. They do take some getting used to. But this is what comes with all the flexibility operators often seek. Mark.
Re: MX204 Virtual Chassis Setup
some of these port capabilities are weird to me. like on the ACX7100-48L you can do 4x100 or 8x50, but ONLY one 40g ?! me@7100> show chassis pic pic-slot 0 fpc-slot 0 | find 400 48 0 1x400G 1x100G 1x40G 4x100G 2x100G 8x50G 2x50G 4x25G 4x10G 3x100G 49 0 1x400G 1x100G 1x40G 4x100G 2x100G 8x50G 2x50G 4x25G 4x10G 3x100G 50 0 1x400G 1x100G 1x40G 4x100G 2x100G 8x50G 2x50G 4x25G 4x10G 3x100G 51 0 1x400G 1x100G 1x40G 4x100G 2x100G 8x50G 2x50G 4x25G 4x10G 3x100G 52 0 1x400G 1x100G 1x40G 4x100G 2x100G 8x50G 2x50G 4x25G 4x10G 3x100G 53 0 1x400G 1x100G 1x40G 4x100G 2x100G 8x50G 2x50G 4x25G 4x10G 3x100G 54 NA 1x10G On 8/23/2023 11:29 AM, t...@pelican.org wrote: On Wednesday, 23 August, 2023 16:33, "Mark Tinka" said: [faceplate oversubscription] On the new ACX line, yes. Not Trio, and different PLM :) We don't mess around with any other MX products, so not sure (although we are still yet to deploy the MPC10E's and the MX304). MX304 (well, strictly LMIC16) has the same restriction, and a need for another entry in the magic port checker (https://apps.juniper.net/home/port-checker/index.html) for restrictions beyond "SUM(port-speeds) <= 1.6T". They make sense once you've looked at the block diagram for the thing and followed the lines, but things like "4x10G breakout can only go in odd-numbered ports, and you have to leave the corresponding next-lowest even-numbered port empty" are not instantly obvious. Thanks, Tim. -- -Aaron
Re: MX204 Virtual Chassis Setup
On Wednesday, 23 August, 2023 16:33, "Mark Tinka" said: [faceplate oversubscription] > On the new ACX line, yes. Not Trio, and different PLM :) > We don't mess around with any other MX products, so not sure (although > we are still yet to deploy the MPC10E's and the MX304). MX304 (well, strictly LMIC16) has the same restriction, and a need for another entry in the magic port checker (https://apps.juniper.net/home/port-checker/index.html) for restrictions beyond "SUM(port-speeds) <= 1.6T". They make sense once you've looked at the block diagram for the thing and followed the lines, but things like "4x10G breakout can only go in odd-numbered ports, and you have to leave the corresponding next-lowest even-numbered port empty" are not instantly obvious. Thanks, Tim.
Re: MX204 Virtual Chassis Setup
On 8/23/23 17:01, Tom Beecher wrote: I'm not sure they allow oversubscription on anything in the MX line anymore honestly. I could be wrong, I've been face down in a specific subset of equipment for a while, someone please correct me if I am. On the new ACX line, yes. If I look at the MPC7E, MPC10E, MX10003 and MX304, no oversubscription is allowed. Even the LC2103 MPC on the MX10003 which has more ports than Trio capacity, won't let you use more than 1.2Tbps (3x Trio 3 chips on it). We don't mess around with any other MX products, so not sure (although we are still yet to deploy the MPC10E's and the MX304). Mark.
Re: MX204 Virtual Chassis Setup
Does Fusion not make sense in this case? I've not had a ton of experience with it, but it does well to add a crazy port count to an otherwise very port limited device. -Matt On Wed, Aug 23, 2023 at 9:01 AM Tom Beecher wrote: > What would have been nice is if Juniper oversubscribed the face plate of >> this platform, as most people are more likely to run out of ports than >> they would the 400Gbps forwarding capacity of Trio. >> > > You're restricted to 400G because they did fixed lane allocations to the > EA chip on the PFE to each port group. Doing an MRATE setup to let you > access all 480G would have increased electrical complexity, and > dramatically increased the price point of the box. There are tradeoffs. The > more flexibility you want, the more expensive the box is going to be. > > I'm not sure they allow oversubscription on anything in the MX line > anymore honestly. I could be wrong, I've been face down in a specific > subset of equipment for a while, someone please correct me if I am. > > On Wed, Aug 23, 2023 at 2:11 AM Mark Tinka wrote: > >> >> >> On 8/23/23 08:00, Pascal Masha wrote: >> >> > Thanks just wanted to know whether it was a supported feature. >> >> What would have been nice is if Juniper oversubscribed the face plate of >> this platform, as most people are more likely to run out of ports than >> they would the 400Gbps forwarding capacity of Trio. >> >> In some cases, we deploy more of these in the same PoP just because we >> need more ports, not because we need more capacity; and a chassis would >> not make sense for the function, yet. >> >> Mark. >> > -- Matt Erculiani, NREMT ERCUL-ARIN
Re: MX204 Virtual Chassis Setup
> > What would have been nice is if Juniper oversubscribed the face plate of > this platform, as most people are more likely to run out of ports than > they would the 400Gbps forwarding capacity of Trio. > You're restricted to 400G because they did fixed lane allocations to the EA chip on the PFE to each port group. Doing an MRATE setup to let you access all 480G would have increased electrical complexity, and dramatically increased the price point of the box. There are tradeoffs. The more flexibility you want, the more expensive the box is going to be. I'm not sure they allow oversubscription on anything in the MX line anymore honestly. I could be wrong, I've been face down in a specific subset of equipment for a while, someone please correct me if I am. On Wed, Aug 23, 2023 at 2:11 AM Mark Tinka wrote: > > > On 8/23/23 08:00, Pascal Masha wrote: > > > Thanks just wanted to know whether it was a supported feature. > > What would have been nice is if Juniper oversubscribed the face plate of > this platform, as most people are more likely to run out of ports than > they would the 400Gbps forwarding capacity of Trio. > > In some cases, we deploy more of these in the same PoP just because we > need more ports, not because we need more capacity; and a chassis would > not make sense for the function, yet. > > Mark. >
Re: Internet Exchange Visualization
I don't think any of us really understand what you're hoping to find. I sure don't.I think that this might be a result of a disconnect between your understanding of how these should be monitored and how they are monitored. Specifically, of your two statements below, one is true and one is false. Just because there are no free "visualization" tools available doesn't mean that there isn't an understanding of the infrastructure. I struggle to see how a visualization tool would help with a big picture view. The scale of interconnection is so staggering that any visualization would of necessity be incomplete so mere mortals could process it with our visual sensors. Unless what you mean by visualization is different than what I envision, the resulting visualization wouldn't be all that useful to network operations. As a result, every network operator that I'm aware of relies on various monitoring tools to alert them based on metrics previously set by humans. I.E. circuit congestion and peer status and so on.There are advanced tools which do sort through various data sets or traffic to try to alert humans to things which seem out of place. But these are not generally visualization tools, but instead essentially report and alert generators. Some times the reports or tools show pretty graphs but I'm not sure I'd classify that as visualization. On the other hand, I wonder if I'm perhaps missing what your end goal is here. If you could be more verbose about the types of data you hope to get out of the tool, then perhaps someone could reply with how that's monitored today. On Tue, Aug 22, 2023, 7:43 AM Thomas Beer wrote: > Hi All! > > to make an (intermediate) summary so far, it's 2023 and there are no tools > available > for BGP, ASN and IX interconnection visualization static or dynamic?! > > Nobody has a top-level understanding / awareness of the infrastructure > topology and fixes > "bottlenecks", route misconfiguration et al. on a peer - to - peer basis?! > > Cheers > Tom > > On Tue, 22 Aug 2023 at 02:34, Dave Taht wrote: > >> I hear the cybergeography project is making a comeback. >> >> >> https://personalpages.manchester.ac.uk/staff/m.dodge/cybergeography/atlas/atlas.html >> >> On Mon, Aug 21, 2023 at 5:17 PM Matthew Petach >> wrote: >> > >> > >> > >> > On Sun, Aug 20, 2023 at 11:06 PM Thomas Beer >> wrote: >> >> >> >> Hi Matt, >> >> >> >>> >> >>> You might mean "exchange inter-connections" as "how are the different >> internet exchanges connected to each other?" >> >>> in which case the answer is generally "through the Internet". ^_^; >> >> >> >> >> >> I meant ix internet exchange path visualization and an online tool to >> take a look at it in (near) real time! >> >> >> >> Cheers >> >> >> > >> > >> > Ah, thank you for the enlightening clarification. >> > >> > No such tool exists, sorry. >> > >> > Thanks! >> > >> > Matt >> > >> >> >> >> -- >> Podcast: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=bxmoBr4cBKg >> Dave Täht CSO, LibreQos >> >
Re: Temporary DIA in Equinix MI1
We can help you. I will contact offlist On Wed, Aug 23, 2023 at 09:42 Eric C. Miller wrote: > Hello, > > > > We have a circuit in MI1 that we are trying to relocate, but there’s a > crazy delay. Does anyone have the ability and desire to coordinate a > Equinix cross connect and sell us DIA for 3-4months? Usage is 2-3Gbps > Residential, we can use our own IPs/ASN if necessary. > > > > Eric >
Temporary DIA in Equinix MI1
Hello, We have a circuit in MI1 that we are trying to relocate, but there's a crazy delay. Does anyone have the ability and desire to coordinate a Equinix cross connect and sell us DIA for 3-4months? Usage is 2-3Gbps Residential, we can use our own IPs/ASN if necessary. Eric
Deployments of Provider Backbone Bridging (PBB)
Hello folks, Based on data I've gathered through quantitative and qualitative surveying, I can detect no application of Provider Backbone Bridging (MAC-in-MAC). Please bear with me while I clarify that I am not enquiring about Provider Bridging (QinQ). I would like to ask specifically about knowledge of deployments of PBB. If anyone would care to share data points, on- or off-list, I would love to know about them. I am open to anything on the subject of PBB's adoption that you are free to share with me. I am bound by GDPR and will anonymize any data that is not open for public disclosure. Thank you! Etienne -- Ing. Etienne-Victor Depasquale
Re: MX204 Virtual Chassis Setup
On 8/23/23 08:00, Pascal Masha wrote: Thanks just wanted to know whether it was a supported feature. What would have been nice is if Juniper oversubscribed the face plate of this platform, as most people are more likely to run out of ports than they would the 400Gbps forwarding capacity of Trio. In some cases, we deploy more of these in the same PoP just because we need more ports, not because we need more capacity; and a chassis would not make sense for the function, yet. Mark.
Re: MX204 Virtual Chassis Setup
Thanks just wanted to know whether it was a supported feature. On Tue, 22 Aug 2023, 21:00 Chris, wrote: > No, but they do however work just great as an active-active pair of > routers when cross linked and iBGP peered to each other and everything > downstream connected to each one. > > Chris > > On Mon, Aug 21, 2023 at 9:43 AM Pascal Masha > wrote: > >> Hello, >> >> Does the MX204 support virtual chassis setup? >> >> Regards, >> Paschal Masha >> >
