Re: [j-nsp] MX960 vs MX10K
Your 960 will be choked if you are going to push a decent traffic volume through it. And circulation through backplane to and from service cards will only make it worse. Just imho. Your choice. Kind regards, Andrey Kostin Aaron Gould писал 2020-03-09 09:18: In my case, 960 has a lot of slots, and I use slot 0 and slot 11 for MPC-7E-MRATE to light up 100 gig east/west ring and 40 gig south to ACX subrings, so I have plenty of slot space for my MS-MPC-128G nat module... If I place it somewhere else, then I gotta cross the network to some extent to get to it... also, my dual 100 gig inet connections are on a couple of those 960's where I colo the mpc-128g card, yeah, it's all right there. Not the case for dsl nat, that's across the network in a couple mx104's, but dsl doesn't have near the speeds that my ftth and cm subs have. -Aaron ___ juniper-nsp mailing list juniper-nsp@puck.nether.net https://puck.nether.net/mailman/listinfo/juniper-nsp
Re: [j-nsp] MX960 vs MX10K
Just fyi, I'm running evpn-mpls between a couple dc's and ms-mpc-128g for my cable modem communities all in the same mx960 chassis's... been good so far. -Aaron ___ juniper-nsp mailing list juniper-nsp@puck.nether.net https://puck.nether.net/mailman/listinfo/juniper-nsp
Re: [j-nsp] MX960 vs MX10K
In my case, 960 has a lot of slots, and I use slot 0 and slot 11 for MPC-7E-MRATE to light up 100 gig east/west ring and 40 gig south to ACX subrings, so I have plenty of slot space for my MS-MPC-128G nat module... If I place it somewhere else, then I gotta cross the network to some extent to get to it... also, my dual 100 gig inet connections are on a couple of those 960's where I colo the mpc-128g card, yeah, it's all right there. Not the case for dsl nat, that's across the network in a couple mx104's, but dsl doesn't have near the speeds that my ftth and cm subs have. -Aaron -Original Message- From: juniper-nsp [mailto:juniper-nsp-boun...@puck.nether.net] On Behalf Of Chris Kawchuk Sent: Wednesday, March 4, 2020 9:33 PM To: Tom Beecher Cc: juniper-nsp Subject: Re: [j-nsp] MX960 vs MX10K Just to chime in --- for scale-out, wouldn't you be better offloading those MS-MPC functions to another box? (i.e. VM/Dedicated Appliance/etc..?). You burn slots for the MSMPC plus you burn the backplane crossing twice; so it's at worst a neutral proposition to externalise it and add low-cost non-HQoS ports to feed it. or is it the case of limited space/power/RUs/want-it-all-in-one-box? and yes, MS-MPC won't scale to Nx100G of workload. - CK. > On 5 Mar 2020, at 1:36 am, Tom Beecher wrote: > > It really depends on what you're going to be doing,but I still have quite a > few MX960s out there running pretty significant workloads without issues. > > I would suspect you hit the limits of the MS-MPCs way before the limits of > the chassis. > > On Wed, Mar 4, 2020 at 6:56 AM Ibariouen Khalid wrote: > >> dear Juniper community >> >> is there any limitation of using MX960 as DC-GW compared to MX10K ? >> >> juniper always recommends to use MX10K , but i my case i need MS-MPC which >> is not supported on MX10K and i want to knwo if i will have some limitation >> on MX960. >> >> Thanks >> ___ >> juniper-nsp mailing list juniper-nsp@puck.nether.net >> https://puck.nether.net/mailman/listinfo/juniper-nsp >> > ___ > juniper-nsp mailing list juniper-nsp@puck.nether.net > https://puck.nether.net/mailman/listinfo/juniper-nsp ___ juniper-nsp mailing list juniper-nsp@puck.nether.net https://puck.nether.net/mailman/listinfo/juniper-nsp ___ juniper-nsp mailing list juniper-nsp@puck.nether.net https://puck.nether.net/mailman/listinfo/juniper-nsp
Re: [j-nsp] MX960 vs MX10K
I'd be +1 for this. For DC GW the main concern should be reliability and simplicity. If you are going to bring EVPN there, then having fancy services mixed on the same chassis may affect your uptime. Also I'd take MX480 instead of 960 because of architecture compromises of the latter. I'm also wondering, if MX960 fits in terms of number of ports and capacity with some slots occupied by service cards, maybe MX1003 + MX480 (or virtualized services) would do the job? Kind regards, Andrey Chris Kawchuk писал 2020-03-04 22:32: Just to chime in --- for scale-out, wouldn't you be better offloading those MS-MPC functions to another box? (i.e. VM/Dedicated Appliance/etc..?). You burn slots for the MSMPC plus you burn the backplane crossing twice; so it's at worst a neutral proposition to externalise it and add low-cost non-HQoS ports to feed it. or is it the case of limited space/power/RUs/want-it-all-in-one-box? and yes, MS-MPC won't scale to Nx100G of workload. - CK. ___ juniper-nsp mailing list juniper-nsp@puck.nether.net https://puck.nether.net/mailman/listinfo/juniper-nsp
Re: [j-nsp] MX960 vs MX10K
On 5/Mar/20 18:29, Saku Ytti wrote: > > If you do it on d) it's done the NPU where the neighbour is, entirely > on the NPU. Not yet available for IPv6. Which reminds me - let me see where Juniper are with this ER. Mark. ___ juniper-nsp mailing list juniper-nsp@puck.nether.net https://puck.nether.net/mailman/listinfo/juniper-nsp
Re: [j-nsp] MX960 vs MX10K
--- Begin Message --- Hello, Ok , when saying "not stateful in any meaningful way" I believe You meant data plane encryption/decryption only - barebone IPSec without IKE exchange and without anti-replay, or do You? And JUNOS BFD variant (c) requires "anchor PFE" - actually not the PFE as "forwarding chip" but "PFE" as short way of saying "linecard CPU that runs PPMD" which processes BFD packets from all linecards. Thanks Alex -- Original Message -- From: "Saku Ytti" To: "Alexander Arseniev" Cc: "Juniper List" Sent: 05/03/2020 16:29:57 Subject: Re: Re[2]: [j-nsp] MX960 vs MX10K On Thu, 5 Mar 2020 at 18:05, Alexander Arseniev wrote: I would expect the "IPSEC anchor PFE", just like it is done with BFD et al a.t.m. That anchor PFE maintains IKE exchange sequences/anti-replay etc and any IKE/IPSec packet arriving on a different PFE would be redirected there. Same thing really what currently happens on a Services card. I'm not sure what you mean by BFD here. BFD can be done in various ways a) RPD b) PPMd on RE CPU c) PPMd on LC CPU d) Inline on NPU If you do it on d) it's done the NPU where the neighbour is, entirely on the NPU. And sure there is signalling in IPSEC, just like there is in BGP, which is not done in hardware. But actual bit pushing is done in hardware. -- ++ytti --- End Message --- ___ juniper-nsp mailing list juniper-nsp@puck.nether.net https://puck.nether.net/mailman/listinfo/juniper-nsp
Re: [j-nsp] MX960 vs MX10K
On Thu, 5 Mar 2020 at 18:05, Alexander Arseniev wrote: > I would expect the "IPSEC anchor PFE", just like it is done with BFD et > al a.t.m. > That anchor PFE maintains IKE exchange sequences/anti-replay etc and any > IKE/IPSec packet arriving on a different PFE would be redirected there. > Same thing really what currently happens on a Services card. I'm not sure what you mean by BFD here. BFD can be done in various ways a) RPD b) PPMd on RE CPU c) PPMd on LC CPU d) Inline on NPU If you do it on d) it's done the NPU where the neighbour is, entirely on the NPU. And sure there is signalling in IPSEC, just like there is in BGP, which is not done in hardware. But actual bit pushing is done in hardware. -- ++ytti ___ juniper-nsp mailing list juniper-nsp@puck.nether.net https://puck.nether.net/mailman/listinfo/juniper-nsp
Re: [j-nsp] MX960 vs MX10K
--- Begin Message --- -- Original Message -- From: "Saku Ytti" IPSEC isn't stateful in any meaningful way If you can implement MACSec it shouldn't take much more transistors to do IPSEC. I always thought maintaining anti-replay counters/IKEv exchange sequences etc is a stateful job, just like TCP handshake/SEQ numbers, no? Indeed current gen (post EA, i.e. ZT and YT) Trio does IPSEC in every port. I would expect the "IPSEC anchor PFE", just like it is done with BFD et al a.t.m. That anchor PFE maintains IKE exchange sequences/anti-replay etc and any IKE/IPSec packet arriving on a different PFE would be redirected there. Same thing really what currently happens on a Services card. Thanks Alex --- End Message --- ___ juniper-nsp mailing list juniper-nsp@puck.nether.net https://puck.nether.net/mailman/listinfo/juniper-nsp
Re: [j-nsp] MX960 vs MX10K
On Thu, 5 Mar 2020 at 05:52, Chris Kawchuk wrote: > Only question is if it needs stateful-ness or not (IPSEC, CGNAT etc...), but > only the OP can answer that. IPSEC isn't stateful in any meaningful way If you can implement MACSec it shouldn't take much more transistors to do IPSEC. Indeed current gen (post EA, i.e. ZT and YT) Trio does IPSEC in every port. -- ++ytti ___ juniper-nsp mailing list juniper-nsp@puck.nether.net https://puck.nether.net/mailman/listinfo/juniper-nsp
Re: [j-nsp] MX960 vs MX10K
Only question is if it needs stateful-ness or not (IPSEC, CGNAT etc...), but only the OP can answer that. - CK. > On 5 Mar 2020, at 2:39 pm, Mark Tinka wrote: > > > > On 5/Mar/20 05:32, Chris Kawchuk wrote: > >> Just to chime in --- for scale-out, wouldn't you be better offloading those >> MS-MPC functions to another box? (i.e. VM/Dedicated Appliance/etc..?). >> >> You burn slots for the MSMPC plus you burn the backplane crossing twice; so >> it's at worst a neutral proposition to externalise it and add low-cost >> non-HQoS ports to feed it. >> >> or is it the case of limited space/power/RUs/want-it-all-in-one-box? and >> yes, MS-MPC won't scale to Nx100G of workload. > > And along that line, are the services the OP needs on the MS-MPC not > available natively in the MX1/960/480/240 line cards? > > Mark. > ___ > juniper-nsp mailing list juniper-nsp@puck.nether.net > https://puck.nether.net/mailman/listinfo/juniper-nsp ___ juniper-nsp mailing list juniper-nsp@puck.nether.net https://puck.nether.net/mailman/listinfo/juniper-nsp
Re: [j-nsp] MX960 vs MX10K
On 5/Mar/20 05:32, Chris Kawchuk wrote: > Just to chime in --- for scale-out, wouldn't you be better offloading those > MS-MPC functions to another box? (i.e. VM/Dedicated Appliance/etc..?). > > You burn slots for the MSMPC plus you burn the backplane crossing twice; so > it's at worst a neutral proposition to externalise it and add low-cost > non-HQoS ports to feed it. > > or is it the case of limited space/power/RUs/want-it-all-in-one-box? and yes, > MS-MPC won't scale to Nx100G of workload. And along that line, are the services the OP needs on the MS-MPC not available natively in the MX1/960/480/240 line cards? Mark. ___ juniper-nsp mailing list juniper-nsp@puck.nether.net https://puck.nether.net/mailman/listinfo/juniper-nsp
Re: [j-nsp] MX960 vs MX10K
Just to chime in --- for scale-out, wouldn't you be better offloading those MS-MPC functions to another box? (i.e. VM/Dedicated Appliance/etc..?). You burn slots for the MSMPC plus you burn the backplane crossing twice; so it's at worst a neutral proposition to externalise it and add low-cost non-HQoS ports to feed it. or is it the case of limited space/power/RUs/want-it-all-in-one-box? and yes, MS-MPC won't scale to Nx100G of workload. - CK. > On 5 Mar 2020, at 1:36 am, Tom Beecher wrote: > > It really depends on what you're going to be doing,but I still have quite a > few MX960s out there running pretty significant workloads without issues. > > I would suspect you hit the limits of the MS-MPCs way before the limits of > the chassis. > > On Wed, Mar 4, 2020 at 6:56 AM Ibariouen Khalid wrote: > >> dear Juniper community >> >> is there any limitation of using MX960 as DC-GW compared to MX10K ? >> >> juniper always recommends to use MX10K , but i my case i need MS-MPC which >> is not supported on MX10K and i want to knwo if i will have some limitation >> on MX960. >> >> Thanks >> ___ >> juniper-nsp mailing list juniper-nsp@puck.nether.net >> https://puck.nether.net/mailman/listinfo/juniper-nsp >> > ___ > juniper-nsp mailing list juniper-nsp@puck.nether.net > https://puck.nether.net/mailman/listinfo/juniper-nsp ___ juniper-nsp mailing list juniper-nsp@puck.nether.net https://puck.nether.net/mailman/listinfo/juniper-nsp
Re: [j-nsp] MX960 vs MX10K
On 4/Mar/20 20:50, Luis Balbinot wrote: > The MPC7E-MRATE is only good if you have to add a few 100G ports to a large > chassis (i.e. MX960) that has lots of 10G interfaces and/or service cards. > It's about 2/3 of the price of a new MX10003 with 12x100G. That's my point :-). We have several MX480's that have a ton of 10Gbps ports, but only need a handful of 100Gbps ports. The MPC7E works out to be a little cheaper than the MX1000 in that regard. For cases where we need more than a handful of 100Gbps ports for edge applications, the MX1 is cheaper than an MX480 with MPC7E's or MPC10E's. Mark. ___ juniper-nsp mailing list juniper-nsp@puck.nether.net https://puck.nether.net/mailman/listinfo/juniper-nsp
Re: [j-nsp] MX960 vs MX10K
The MPC7E-MRATE is only good if you have to add a few 100G ports to a large chassis (i.e. MX960) that has lots of 10G interfaces and/or service cards. It's about 2/3 of the price of a new MX10003 with 12x100G. On Wed, Mar 4, 2020 at 12:45 PM Mark Tinka wrote: > > > On 4/Mar/20 17:18, Tom Beecher wrote: > > Likely, but if you only need like 4 :) > > Then try the MPC7E :-). Cheaper than the MPC10E. > > Mark. > ___ > juniper-nsp mailing list juniper-nsp@puck.nether.net > https://puck.nether.net/mailman/listinfo/juniper-nsp > ___ juniper-nsp mailing list juniper-nsp@puck.nether.net https://puck.nether.net/mailman/listinfo/juniper-nsp
Re: [j-nsp] MX960 vs MX10K
On 4/Mar/20 17:18, Tom Beecher wrote: > Likely, but if you only need like 4 :) Then try the MPC7E :-). Cheaper than the MPC10E. Mark. ___ juniper-nsp mailing list juniper-nsp@puck.nether.net https://puck.nether.net/mailman/listinfo/juniper-nsp
Re: [j-nsp] MX960 vs MX10K
Likely, but if you only need like 4 :) On Wed, Mar 4, 2020 at 10:01 AM Mark Tinka wrote: > > On 4/Mar/20 16:53, Giuliano C. Medalha wrote: > > With the new MPC10 you can get 10 x 100G or 15 x 100G per slot in mx240 , > mx480 or mx960 > > But you will need premium 3 chassis with scbe3 boards to have maximum > capacity. > > > An MX10008/10016 chassis can get you 24x 100Gbps per slot. That's going to > be a lot cheaper than an MPC10E-15C-MRATE (and other bits you may need to > upgrade for the performance). > > Mark. > > ___ juniper-nsp mailing list juniper-nsp@puck.nether.net https://puck.nether.net/mailman/listinfo/juniper-nsp
Re: [j-nsp] MX960 vs MX10K
On 4/Mar/20 16:53, Giuliano C. Medalha wrote: > With the new MPC10 you can get 10 x 100G or 15 x 100G per slot in > mx240 , mx480 or mx960 > > But you will need premium 3 chassis with scbe3 boards to have maximum > capacity. An MX10008/10016 chassis can get you 24x 100Gbps per slot. That's going to be a lot cheaper than an MPC10E-15C-MRATE (and other bits you may need to upgrade for the performance). Mark. ___ juniper-nsp mailing list juniper-nsp@puck.nether.net https://puck.nether.net/mailman/listinfo/juniper-nsp
Re: [j-nsp] MX960 vs MX10K
With the new MPC10 you can get 10 x 100G or 15 x 100G per slot in mx240 , mx480 or mx960 But you will need premium 3 chassis with scbe3 boards to have maximum capacity. Get Outlook for iOS<https://aka.ms/o0ukef> From: juniper-nsp on behalf of Tom Beecher Sent: Wednesday, March 4, 2020 11:47:29 AM To: Mark Tinka Cc: juniper-nsp Subject: Re: [j-nsp] MX960 vs MX10K You can still get 100G ports on the 960 chassis with MPC5E/6/7s , depending on what kind of density you require. On Wed, Mar 4, 2020 at 9:42 AM Mark Tinka wrote: > > > On 4/Mar/20 16:36, Tom Beecher wrote: > > It really depends on what you're going to be doing,but I still have > quite a > > few MX960s out there running pretty significant workloads without issues. > > > > I would suspect you hit the limits of the MS-MPCs way before the limits > of > > the chassis. > > The classic MX chassis are nowhere close to running out of ideas. > > But Juniper have to always be pushing the tech., so emphasis will be on > the MX1000 (although not necessarily at the expense of the MX960/480/240). > > I still believe if your use-case is not overly complicated, you may find > the MX960/480 to be cheaper if you don't need 100Gbps ports. > > Mark. > ___ > juniper-nsp mailing list juniper-nsp@puck.nether.net > https://nam02.safelinks.protection.outlook.com/?url=https%3A%2F%2Fpuck.nether.net%2Fmailman%2Flistinfo%2Fjuniper-nspdata=02%7C01%7Cgiuliano%40wztech.com.br%7C0677ff9683cb447dc8ca08d7c04b78df%7C584787b077bd4312bf8815412b8ae504%7C1%7C0%7C637189302716146887sdata=JcCFyUbjkOfxyyPrKRn%2F3ihFfrh1AMWL1hSXyJSIrHo%3Dreserved=0 > ___ juniper-nsp mailing list juniper-nsp@puck.nether.net https://nam02.safelinks.protection.outlook.com/?url=https%3A%2F%2Fpuck.nether.net%2Fmailman%2Flistinfo%2Fjuniper-nspdata=02%7C01%7Cgiuliano%40wztech.com.br%7C0677ff9683cb447dc8ca08d7c04b78df%7C584787b077bd4312bf8815412b8ae504%7C1%7C0%7C637189302716156884sdata=JkwRRASmBkKYk7KbLOkqY%2F%2BRuI%2Ffq9fNoVJdQN5KrRk%3Dreserved=0 WZTECH is registered trademark of WZTECH NETWORKS. Copyright © 2018 WZTECH NETWORKS. All Rights Reserved. IMPORTANTE: As informações deste e-mail e o conteúdo dos eventuais documentos anexos são confidenciais e para conhecimento exclusivo do destinatário. Se o leitor desta mensagem não for o seu destinatário, fica desde já notificado de que não poderá divulgar, distribuir ou, sob qualquer forma, dar conhecimento a terceiros das informações e do conteúdo dos documentos anexos. Neste caso, favor comunicar imediatamente o remetente, respondendo este e-mail ou telefonando ao mesmo, e em seguida apague-o. CONFIDENTIALITY NOTICE: The information transmitted in this email message and any attachments are solely for the intended recipient and may contain confidential or privileged information. If you are not the intended recipient, any review, transmission, dissemination or other use of this information is prohibited. If you have received this communication in error, please notify the sender immediately and delete the material from any computer, including any copies. WZTECH is registered trademark of WZTECH NETWORKS. Copyright © 2018 WZTECH NETWORKS. All Rights Reserved. IMPORTANTE: As informações deste e-mail e o conteúdo dos eventuais documentos anexos são confidenciais e para conhecimento exclusivo do destinatário. Se o leitor desta mensagem não for o seu destinatário, fica desde já notificado de que não poderá divulgar, distribuir ou, sob qualquer forma, dar conhecimento a terceiros das informações e do conteúdo dos documentos anexos. Neste caso, favor comunicar imediatamente o remetente, respondendo este e-mail ou telefonando ao mesmo, e em seguida apague-o. CONFIDENTIALITY NOTICE: The information transmitted in this email message and any attachments are solely for the intended recipient and may contain confidential or privileged information. If you are not the intended recipient, any review, transmission, dissemination or other use of this information is prohibited. If you have received this communication in error, please notify the sender immediately and delete the material from any computer, including any copies. ___ juniper-nsp mailing list juniper-nsp@puck.nether.net https://puck.nether.net/mailman/listinfo/juniper-nsp
Re: [j-nsp] MX960 vs MX10K
On 4/Mar/20 16:47, Tom Beecher wrote: > You can still get 100G ports on the 960 chassis with MPC5E/6/7s , > depending on what kind of density you require. I didn't say the MX960/480 doesn't support 100Gbps ports; I said they would be cheaper on an MX1 if you need more than a handful per slot. We have some MPC7E's with 100Gbps ports on some of our MX480's. Because we needed so few, it was cheaper than getting an MX1. But there are instances where an MX1 makes more sense because we have a large need of 100Gbps ports per slot in those areas. Mark. ___ juniper-nsp mailing list juniper-nsp@puck.nether.net https://puck.nether.net/mailman/listinfo/juniper-nsp
Re: [j-nsp] MX960 vs MX10K
You can still get 100G ports on the 960 chassis with MPC5E/6/7s , depending on what kind of density you require. On Wed, Mar 4, 2020 at 9:42 AM Mark Tinka wrote: > > > On 4/Mar/20 16:36, Tom Beecher wrote: > > It really depends on what you're going to be doing,but I still have > quite a > > few MX960s out there running pretty significant workloads without issues. > > > > I would suspect you hit the limits of the MS-MPCs way before the limits > of > > the chassis. > > The classic MX chassis are nowhere close to running out of ideas. > > But Juniper have to always be pushing the tech., so emphasis will be on > the MX1000 (although not necessarily at the expense of the MX960/480/240). > > I still believe if your use-case is not overly complicated, you may find > the MX960/480 to be cheaper if you don't need 100Gbps ports. > > Mark. > ___ > juniper-nsp mailing list juniper-nsp@puck.nether.net > https://puck.nether.net/mailman/listinfo/juniper-nsp > ___ juniper-nsp mailing list juniper-nsp@puck.nether.net https://puck.nether.net/mailman/listinfo/juniper-nsp
Re: [j-nsp] MX960 vs MX10K
On 4/Mar/20 16:36, Tom Beecher wrote: > It really depends on what you're going to be doing,but I still have quite a > few MX960s out there running pretty significant workloads without issues. > > I would suspect you hit the limits of the MS-MPCs way before the limits of > the chassis. The classic MX chassis are nowhere close to running out of ideas. But Juniper have to always be pushing the tech., so emphasis will be on the MX1000 (although not necessarily at the expense of the MX960/480/240). I still believe if your use-case is not overly complicated, you may find the MX960/480 to be cheaper if you don't need 100Gbps ports. Mark. ___ juniper-nsp mailing list juniper-nsp@puck.nether.net https://puck.nether.net/mailman/listinfo/juniper-nsp
Re: [j-nsp] MX960 vs MX10K
It really depends on what you're going to be doing,but I still have quite a few MX960s out there running pretty significant workloads without issues. I would suspect you hit the limits of the MS-MPCs way before the limits of the chassis. On Wed, Mar 4, 2020 at 6:56 AM Ibariouen Khalid wrote: > dear Juniper community > > is there any limitation of using MX960 as DC-GW compared to MX10K ? > > juniper always recommends to use MX10K , but i my case i need MS-MPC which > is not supported on MX10K and i want to knwo if i will have some limitation > on MX960. > > Thanks > ___ > juniper-nsp mailing list juniper-nsp@puck.nether.net > https://puck.nether.net/mailman/listinfo/juniper-nsp > ___ juniper-nsp mailing list juniper-nsp@puck.nether.net https://puck.nether.net/mailman/listinfo/juniper-nsp
Re: [j-nsp] MX960 vs MX10K
On 4/Mar/20 13:55, Ibariouen Khalid wrote: > dear Juniper community > > is there any limitation of using MX960 as DC-GW compared to MX10K ? > > juniper always recommends to use MX10K , but i my case i need MS-MPC which > is not supported on MX10K and i want to knwo if i will have some limitation > on MX960. Juniper's future lies in the MX1. If your needs are not too complicated, the MX960/480 are still great options. For us, the MX480 is our edge workhorse. But where we need to deliver 100Gbps service ports, the MX1000 makes more sense. Mark. ___ juniper-nsp mailing list juniper-nsp@puck.nether.net https://puck.nether.net/mailman/listinfo/juniper-nsp
Re: [j-nsp] MX960 vs MX10K
mx10008 On Wed, Mar 4, 2020 at 12:59 PM Alexandre Guimaraes < alexandre.guimar...@ascenty.com> wrote: > > > What model of MX10k? > > > Em 04/03/2020 08:56, "juniper-nsp em nome de Ibariouen Khalid" < > juniper-nsp-boun...@puck.nether.net em nome de ibario...@gmail.com> > escreveu: > > dear Juniper community > > is there any limitation of using MX960 as DC-GW compared to MX10K ? > > juniper always recommends to use MX10K , but i my case i need MS-MPC > which > is not supported on MX10K and i want to knwo if i will have some > limitation > on MX960. > > Thanks > ___ > juniper-nsp mailing list juniper-nsp@puck.nether.net > > https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=https-3A__puck.nether.net_mailman_listinfo_juniper-2Dnsp=DwICAg=euGZstcaTDllvimEN8b7jXrwqOf-v5A_CdpgnVfiiMM=d3qAF5t8mugacLDeGpoAguKDWyMVANad_HfrWBCDH1s=fZPomAfgI6F_gCmglyCCQEd7ffiHarAb7El2RzioVt8=LfmhcIovDqSZJMirXRIbBV7E4uNs9PqHzR_R6ZnPMKw= > > > ___ juniper-nsp mailing list juniper-nsp@puck.nether.net https://puck.nether.net/mailman/listinfo/juniper-nsp
Re: [j-nsp] MX960 vs MX10K
What model of MX10k? Em 04/03/2020 08:56, "juniper-nsp em nome de Ibariouen Khalid" escreveu: dear Juniper community is there any limitation of using MX960 as DC-GW compared to MX10K ? juniper always recommends to use MX10K , but i my case i need MS-MPC which is not supported on MX10K and i want to knwo if i will have some limitation on MX960. Thanks ___ juniper-nsp mailing list juniper-nsp@puck.nether.net https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=https-3A__puck.nether.net_mailman_listinfo_juniper-2Dnsp=DwICAg=euGZstcaTDllvimEN8b7jXrwqOf-v5A_CdpgnVfiiMM=d3qAF5t8mugacLDeGpoAguKDWyMVANad_HfrWBCDH1s=fZPomAfgI6F_gCmglyCCQEd7ffiHarAb7El2RzioVt8=LfmhcIovDqSZJMirXRIbBV7E4uNs9PqHzR_R6ZnPMKw= ___ juniper-nsp mailing list juniper-nsp@puck.nether.net https://puck.nether.net/mailman/listinfo/juniper-nsp
[j-nsp] MX960 vs MX10K
dear Juniper community is there any limitation of using MX960 as DC-GW compared to MX10K ? juniper always recommends to use MX10K , but i my case i need MS-MPC which is not supported on MX10K and i want to knwo if i will have some limitation on MX960. Thanks ___ juniper-nsp mailing list juniper-nsp@puck.nether.net https://puck.nether.net/mailman/listinfo/juniper-nsp
