Saku Ytti wrote:
1) It’s 3.5U high, making rack planning a little weird, and requiring me to
buy a hard to find half-U blank panel
It is targeting metro applications, where racks often are telco racks. job-1
and job-2 were thrilled to get MX104 form-factor, MX80 was very problematic
and
Hi
I'm also using MX 104 in my core network with two full BGP feed and some IX
route which working fine .
On Friday, July 10, 2015 3:41 AM, Mark Tinka mark.ti...@seacom.mu wrote:
On 9/Jul/15 17:57, Saku Ytti wrote:
It's standard C15/C16 which is temperature enchanced (120c)
Hi Mark,
-Original Message-
From: Mark Tinka [mailto:mark.ti...@seacom.mu]
Sent: 09 July 2015 14:36
To: Adam Vitkovsky; Colton Conor; juniper-nsp@puck.nether.net
Subject: Re: [j-nsp] MX104 Limitations
On 9/Jul/15 15:27, Adam Vitkovsky wrote:
Interesting facts.
Now
On 9/Jul/15 16:34, Adam Vitkovsky wrote:
Still haven't seen the preso on 9904 internals but I'm not quite convinced.
Do I read it right it's just basically 9006-2 with some RU savings?
The ASR99xx are simply the same architecture as the ASR9000's, but the
difference is the fabric is faster.
On Jul 9, 2015, at 9:39 AM, Mark Tinka mark.ti...@seacom.mu wrote:
On 9/Jul/15 16:34, Adam Vitkovsky wrote:
But MX104 can't hold the full internet routing table in forwarding-table so
it's good only for peering or can it indeed?
Can't it? I've assumed it can. Haven't actually
sth...@nethelp.no
Sent: 09 July 2015 15:44
But MX104 can't hold the full internet routing table in forwarding-table
so
it's good only for peering or can it indeed?
Can't it? I've assumed it can. Haven't actually deployed one yet.
It sure can. Last info I got from Juniper: 1.8M
But MX104 can't hold the full internet routing table in forwarding-table so
it's good only for peering or can it indeed?
Can't it? I've assumed it can. Haven't actually deployed one yet.
It sure can. Last info I got from Juniper: 1.8M IPv4 or IPv6 prefixes
(or a combination of the two).
June 2015 14:09
To: juniper-nsp@puck.nether.net
Subject: [j-nsp] MX104 Limitations
We are considering upgrading to a Juniper MX104, but another vendor (not
Juniper) pointed out the following limitations about the MX104 in their
comparison. I am wondering how much of it is actually true about
Hi Mark,
-Original Message-
From: Mark Tinka [mailto:mark.ti...@seacom.mu]
Sent: 09 July 2015 15:39
On 9/Jul/15 16:34, Adam Vitkovsky wrote:
Still haven't seen the preso on 9904 internals but I'm not quite convinced.
Do I read it right it's just basically 9006-2 with some RU
On (2015-07-09 16:44 +0200), sth...@nethelp.no wrote:
But MX104 can't hold the full internet routing table in forwarding-table
so it's good only for peering or can it indeed?
Can't it? I've assumed it can. Haven't actually deployed one yet.
It sure can. Last info I got from
On (2015-07-09 09:45 -0500), Kevin Day wrote:
Hey,
1) It’s 3.5U high, making rack planning a little weird, and requiring me to
buy a hard to find half-U blank panel
It is targeting metro applications, where racks often are telco racks. job-1
and job-2 were thrilled to get MX104 form-factor,
1) It$,1ry(Bs 3.5U high, making rack planning a little weird, and
requiring me to buy a hard to find half-U blank panel
It is targeting metro applications, where racks often are telco racks. job-1
and job-2 were thrilled to get MX104 form-factor, MX80 was very problematic
and lead to
On Jul 9, 2015, at 10:57 AM, Saku Ytti s...@ytti.fi wrote:
1) It’s 3.5U high, making rack planning a little weird, and requiring me to
buy a hard to find half-U blank panel
It is targeting metro applications, where racks often are telco racks. job-1
and job-2 were thrilled to get
-
From: juniper-nsp [mailto:juniper-nsp-boun...@puck.nether.net] On Behalf
Of Colton Conor
Sent: 24 June 2015 14:09
To: juniper-nsp@puck.nether.net
Subject: [j-nsp] MX104 Limitations
We are considering upgrading to a Juniper MX104, but another vendor (not
Juniper) pointed out the following
On 9/Jul/15 15:27, Adam Vitkovsky wrote:
Interesting facts.
Now the Juniper MX104 win over Cisco ASR903 (max prefix limit) is not that
clear anymore.
Since the chassis is 80Gbps in total I'd assume around 40Gbps towards
aggregation and 40Gbps to backbone.
Also if BFD is really not
I have set up the 104 in over seas pops and taken several views with out issue.
At a minimum 2 full table feeds + some peering. SHouldn’t be a problem.
On Jul 9, 2015, at 10:44 AM, sth...@nethelp.no wrote:
But MX104 can't hold the full internet routing table in forwarding-table so
it's
On 9/Jul/15 16:59, Adam Vitkovsky wrote:
Right but I guess the main advantage of 9922 and 9912 is that the switch
fabric is modular so one can grow/upgrade until the backplane becomes
obsolete.
But on 9904 the fabric seem to be integrated on the RSP so it's the same as
9k10 or 9k6 but
On 9/Jul/15 17:57, Saku Ytti wrote:
It's standard C15/C16 which is temperature enchanced (120c) version of
standard C13/C14. Lot of vendors are doing that these days, I'd like to
understand why. Is there some new recommendation for fire safety or what has
triggered the change.
We're seeing
On 9/Jul/15 16:45, Kevin Day wrote:
3) The Routing Engine CPU is a little slow for commits
If they can get the power budgets right, we may get an x86 RE for this
MX104.
Mark.
___
juniper-nsp mailing list juniper-nsp@puck.nether.net
On (2015-06-25 12:59 +0200), Mark Tinka wrote:
Hey Mark,
For example, a lack of H-QoS on the MX80 or MX104 is not a show-stopper
for us if we are using it as a peering/border router. As an edge router
MX80 and MX104 fully support HQoS. Only limitation is that QX can only be used
for MIC
You meant: In MX80/104, where fabric should sit, you have 4 integrated 10GE
ports.
25 june 2015 @ 13:10, Saku Ytti s...@ytti.fi wrote :
Only difference is, that MPC 'wastes' 50% of capacity for fabric, and
MX104/MX80 spend this capacity for additional ports. (In MX80 where fabric
should
On 25/Jun/15 13:10, Saku Ytti wrote:
MX80 and MX104 fully support HQoS. Only limitation is that QX can only be used
for MIC ports, so you cannot do per-VLAN subrate services on chassis ports.
Sorry I wasn't clear - I meant this as an example, not literally...
Mark.
On 24/Jun/15 15:58, Phil Rosenthal wrote:
Obviously this list came from someone with a biased viewpoint of
nothing but problems with Juniper -- A Competitor. Consider that there
are also positives. For example, In Software, most people here would
rank JunOS Cisco IOS Brocade Arista
On (2015-06-25 13:14 +0200), Olivier Benghozi wrote:
Hey Olivier,
You meant: In MX80/104, where fabric should sit, you have 4 integrated 10GE
ports.
This is common misconception. People think the chassis ports are magical,
because they don't support QX QoS. But the chassis ports are actually
Hi Saku,
Well, it's what I can read in Juniper MX Series, O'Reilly, by Harry Reynolds
Douglas Richard Hanks Jr.
Chapter 1, section MX80: in lieu of a switch fabric, each MX80 comes with four
fixed 10GE ports.
Olivier
25 juin 2015 @ 15:35, Saku Ytti s...@ytti.fi wrote :
On (2015-06-25
That comment does not directly state it's in fabric side, the
implication can be made, but it's not true. There is no external PHY,
it's exactly like 4x10GE MIC, hence it must connect on WAN side.
On 25 June 2015 at 19:07, Olivier Benghozi olivier.bengh...@wifirst.fr wrote:
Hi Saku,
Well,
We are considering upgrading to a Juniper MX104, but another vendor (not
Juniper) pointed out the following limitations about the MX104 in their
comparison. I am wondering how much of it is actually true about the MX104?
And if true, is it really that big of a deal?:
1. No fabric redundancy
Comments inline below.
On Jun 24, 2015, at 9:08 AM, Colton Conor colton.co...@gmail.com wrote:
We are considering upgrading to a Juniper MX104, but another vendor (not
Juniper) pointed out the following limitations about the MX104 in their
comparison. I am wondering how much of it is
Hello,
I have no the full knowledge to disccussall of the points above, but the
real point is where you come from ? mx80 ? and why you need an upgrade
to (say) mx104 ?
And for what I know:
1. MX104 like MX80 have no SBC, true. They are integrated router.
So no redundancy on this point.
2.
On (2015-06-24 08:08 -0500), Colton Conor wrote:
Hey,
1. No fabric redundancy due to fabric-less design. There is no switch
fabric on the MX104, but there is on the rest of the MX series. Not sure if
this is a bad or good thing?
I'd say categorically good thing. Less latency, less
30 matches
Mail list logo
