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
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
-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
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
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
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: "Ju
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.
>
--- 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
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
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
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
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
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
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
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
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
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
eecher
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
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
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
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
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:
>
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
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
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
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
26 matches
Mail list logo
