Re: [j-nsp] RE-S-X6-64G-BB

> Colton Conor > Sent: Thursday, May 26, 2016 2:36 PM > To: Mark Tinka > Cc: Phil Rosenthal; Juniper List > Subject: Re: [j-nsp] RE-S-X6-64G-BB > > Alright, so if not upgrading from a previous Juniper box (buying new), would > you at this point not take the newer RE's

Re: [j-nsp] RE-S-X6-64G-BB

On 26/May/16 15:35, Colton Conor wrote: > Alright, so if not upgrading from a previous Juniper box (buying new), > would you at this point not take the newer RE's that are the same > price as the older? Well, if I'm deploying Juniper for the first time, I'll go with the latest and greatest.

Re: [j-nsp] RE-S-X6-64G-BB

Alright, so if not upgrading from a previous Juniper box (buying new), would you at this point not take the newer RE's that are the same price as the older? On Thu, May 26, 2016 at 5:16 AM, Mark Tinka wrote: > > > On 26/May/16 11:52, raf wrote: > > > > > Ah ok. This RE

Re: [j-nsp] RE-S-X6-64G-BB

On 26/May/16 11:52, raf wrote: > > Ah ok. This RE come with a new embeded network card for the mngt, and > Freebsd 6 does have not support for it; and juniper would not make the > effort to backport it. > Juniper want their customer to test their new code. It can be scary > for op, and

Re: [j-nsp] RE-S-X6-64G-BB

Le 25/05/2016 à 23:33, Phil Rosenthal a écrit : There is a different network card driver, so it would require a different kernel. Ah ok. This RE come with a new embeded network card for the mngt, and Freebsd 6 does have not support for it; and juniper would not make the effort to

Re: [j-nsp] RE-S-X6-64G-BB

> Saku Ytti > Sent: Wednesday, May 25, 2016 3:34 PM > > On 25 May 2016 at 17:10, raf wrote: > > > Sure; but often network components are relatively isolated of the rest > > of the DCs, so running all of them on a big hypervisor close to the > > forwarding engine make sense (at

Re: [j-nsp] RE-S-X6-64G-BB

> Phil Rosenthal > Sent: Wednesday, May 25, 2016 5:53 PM > > > > On May 25, 2016, at 12:31 PM, Colton Conor > wrote: > > > > Assuming we are not going to be using these new RE's to load any 3rd > > party software on them, the RE-S-X6-64G-BB will just be a quicker > >

Re: [j-nsp] RE-S-X6-64G-BB

On 25/May/16 23:39, Phil Rosenthal wrote: > > I think Juniper made the right call -- if you have a reason to "need" the > bleeding edge RE, you should also be fine with running the bleeding edge > Junos. Which, I think, is fair. If you are willing to support a popular but older generation,

Re: [j-nsp] RE-S-X6-64G-BB

> On May 25, 2016, at 5:37 PM, Mark Tinka wrote: > > > > On 25/May/16 23:33, Phil Rosenthal wrote: > >> There is a different network card driver, so it would require a different >> kernel. > > Which needs time, porting and testing... > > Mark. Oh I know, I was just

Re: [j-nsp] RE-S-X6-64G-BB

On 25/May/16 23:33, Phil Rosenthal wrote: > There is a different network card driver, so it would require a different > kernel. Which needs time, porting and testing... Mark. ___ juniper-nsp mailing list juniper-nsp@puck.nether.net

Re: [j-nsp] RE-S-X6-64G-BB

> On May 25, 2016, at 5:03 PM, Mark Tinka wrote: > > > > On 25/May/16 21:50, raf wrote: > >> >> >> This is really strange. I don't see technical reason why 14, 13 or >> even old one could not use a newer RE. After all it was just a newer >> CPU and more RAM. >> It

Re: [j-nsp] RE-S-X6-64G-BB

On 25/May/16 21:50, raf wrote: > > > This is really strange. I don't see technical reason why 14, 13 or > even old one could not use a newer RE. After all it was just a newer > CPU and more RAM. > It should work a least with one core and 4G enabled. Time involved in porting and testing. >

Re: [j-nsp] RE-S-X6-64G-BB

On 25/May/16 20:57, Saku Ytti wrote: > I don't find much value in official recommendations. Generally > strategy with all vendors is: > > 1) get newest supported (if long term release exist then that) > software available > 2) if defects, upgrade minor version > 3) if hw requires or feature

Re: [j-nsp] RE-S-X6-64G-BB

On 25/May/16 19:28, Daniel Verlouw wrote: > definitely good and valid points, however are you willing to deploy > (what I consider) bleeding-edge code in your network to support the > latest and greatest HW? I'm most certainly not, have plenty of issues > today with so-called 'stable'

Re: [j-nsp] RE-S-X6-64G-BB

On 25/May/16 18:52, Phil Rosenthal wrote: > > I would bet money on this being the case. I would assume that a certain > company that has a large search engine is of the general opinion "We like the > hardware, but we do not want to use your software in any way. We can write > our own

Re: [j-nsp] RE-S-X6-64G-BB

On 25/May/16 18:47, Colton Conor wrote: > Besides swapping the inter processor out for a new one, and adding more and > faster ram, is there really any other big differences? No one ever complained about faster processors and more RAM. But there is a lot more to consider before deploying that

Re: [j-nsp] RE-S-X6-64G-BB

On 25/May/16 18:44, Michael Still wrote: > Couple reasons. First is that this is pretty shiny new product and it's a > good idea to expect bugs to be found in it. Second is that it requires you > to run much newer / less well baked code than a lot of people are > comfortable with in their

Re: [j-nsp] RE-S-X6-64G-BB

On 25/May/16 18:31, Colton Conor wrote: > Assuming we are not going to be using these new RE's to load any 3rd party > software on them, the RE-S-X6-64G-BB will just be a quicker processor with > more ram compared to an older RE right? Are there any other benefits? > Juniper is offering the

Re: [j-nsp] RE-S-X6-64G-BB

Le 25/05/2016 à 18:52, Phil Rosenthal a écrit : This new RE requires Junos 15.1R4 minimum. If you have a reason to use 14.x or 13.x, then this RE will not work for you. This is really strange. I don't see technical reason why 14, 13 or even old one could not use a newer RE. After all

Re: [j-nsp] RE-S-X6-64G-BB

> Am 25.05.2016 um 21:00 schrieb Phil Rosenthal : > > >> On May 25, 2016, at 2:57 PM, Saku Ytti wrote: >> >> I would personally be very interested in jumping to 16.1 as soon as >> practice, as BGP is supposedly in its own thread. Maybe RPD in its own >> core.

Re: [j-nsp] RE-S-X6-64G-BB

On 25 May 2016 at 22:00, Phil Rosenthal wrote: > RPD is already essentially in it's own core in 15.1, since the kernel is > finally SMP. I don't see how there would be any benefit to forcing > affinity, if that's what you are implying? Yeah, I'd like affinity for it, so no

Re: [j-nsp] RE-S-X6-64G-BB

> On May 25, 2016, at 2:57 PM, Saku Ytti wrote: > > I would personally be very interested in jumping to 16.1 as soon as > practice, as BGP is supposedly in its own thread. Maybe RPD in its own > core. So that might bring lot of stability. RPD is already essentially in it's own

Re: [j-nsp] RE-S-X6-64G-BB

On 25 May 2016 at 20:59, Colton Conor wrote: > So how long before Junos 15.1R4 or higher will be the offical JTAC > Recommended Junos Software Version for MX Series with NG MPCs? Right now > it's Junos 14.1R7 I don't find much value in official recommendations. Generally

Re: [j-nsp] RE-S-X6-64G-BB

> On May 25, 2016, at 1:59 PM, Colton Conor wrote: > > So how long before Junos 15.1R4 or higher will be the offical JTAC > Recommended Junos Software Version for MX Series with NG MPCs? Right now > it's Junos 14.1R7 Based on how things have gone in the past, the

Re: [j-nsp] RE-S-X6-64G-BB

So how long before Junos 15.1R4 or higher will be the offical JTAC Recommended Junos Software Version for MX Series with NG MPCs? Right now it's Junos 14.1R7 On Wed, May 25, 2016 at 12:28 PM, Daniel Verlouw wrote: > Hi, > > On Wed, May 25, 2016 at 7:06 PM, Saku Ytti

Re: [j-nsp] RE-S-X6-64G-BB

On 25 May 2016 at 20:28, Daniel Verlouw wrote: > definitely good and valid points, however are you willing to deploy > (what I consider) bleeding-edge code in your network to support the > latest and greatest HW? I'm most certainly not, have plenty of issues > today with

Re: [j-nsp] RE-S-X6-64G-BB

Hi, On Wed, May 25, 2016 at 7:06 PM, Saku Ytti wrote: > Longer time before it's end of support, better resell value on top of > normal better scale and convergence. definitely good and valid points, however are you willing to deploy (what I consider) bleeding-edge code in your

Re: [j-nsp] RE-S-X6-64G-BB

On 25 May 2016 at 19:47, Colton Conor wrote: > Besides swapping the inter processor out for a new one, and adding more and > faster ram, is there really any other big differences? Longer time before it's end of support, better resell value on top of normal better scale

Re: [j-nsp] RE-S-X6-64G-BB

> On May 25, 2016, at 12:31 PM, Colton Conor wrote: > > Assuming we are not going to be using these new RE's to load any 3rd party > software on them, the RE-S-X6-64G-BB will just be a quicker processor with > more ram compared to an older RE right? Are there any other

Re: [j-nsp] RE-S-X6-64G-BB

Besides swapping the inter processor out for a new one, and adding more and faster ram, is there really any other big differences? On Wed, May 25, 2016 at 11:44 AM, Michael Still wrote: > > > On Wed, May 25, 2016 at 12:31 PM, Colton Conor > wrote:

Re: [j-nsp] RE-S-X6-64G-BB

On 25 May 2016 at 19:31, Colton Conor wrote: > Assuming we are not going to be using these new RE's to load any 3rd party > software on them, the RE-S-X6-64G-BB will just be a quicker processor with > more ram compared to an older RE right? Are there any other benefits? >

Re: [j-nsp] RE-S-X6-64G-BB

On Wed, May 25, 2016 at 12:31 PM, Colton Conor wrote: > Assuming we are not going to be using these new RE's to load any 3rd party > software on them, the RE-S-X6-64G-BB will just be a quicker processor with > more ram compared to an older RE right? Are there any other

Re: [j-nsp] RE-S-X6-64G-BB

Assuming we are not going to be using these new RE's to load any 3rd party software on them, the RE-S-X6-64G-BB will just be a quicker processor with more ram compared to an older RE right? Are there any other benefits? Juniper is offering the RE-S-X6-64G-BB for the same price as the

Re: [j-nsp] RE-S-X6-64G-BB

On 25 May 2016 at 17:10, raf wrote: Hey, > On this point I disagree. Virtualization add a layer and a little overhead, > but nowadays it's a mature and stable technologies. > And splitting things and decoupling them are always a good things for me. I > talk about junos which

Re: [j-nsp] RE-S-X6-64G-BB

Le 23/05/2016 à 18:57, Saku Ytti a écrit : I think this is driven by not having options mostly, freescale isn't there for today's control-plane scale Yes absolutely; but as a side effect we should have a much reactive control plane while junos was primarily coded on x86; and porting on

Re: [j-nsp] RE-S-X6-64G-BB

On 23 May 2016 at 19:39, raf wrote: > The first good effect is all platform will converge and use x86 processors. I think this is driven by not having options mostly, freescale isn't there for today's control-plane scale. > So we will converge on one processor target which

Re: [j-nsp] RE-S-X6-64G-BB

Le 21/05/2016 à 22:26, Saku Ytti a écrit : All vendors are pimping this like it's something customers have been crying for ages. But who actually is planning to use their routers are general purpose compute? What advantages can it have? I see some good point using this approach. These are

Re: [j-nsp] RE-S-X6-64G-BB

On 21/May/16 23:39, Fredrik Korsbäck wrote: > ** > > Got Plenty of the new RE´s and running 15.1I20160518 release. That looks like an engineering release. > > Now that Junos runs in a VM you can actually choose to not do a "one > go" upgrade, we have received cards where the Vmclient (the >

Re: [j-nsp] RE-S-X6-64G-BB

From: Mark Tinka <mark.ti...@seacom.mu> To: quinn snyder <snyd...@gmail.com>, Saku Ytti <s...@ytti.fi> Cc: Juniper List <juniper-nsp@puck.nether.net> Sent: 5/21/2016 11:02 PM Subject: Re: [j-nsp] RE-S-X6-64G-BB On 21/May/16 22:51, quinn snyder wr

Re: [j-nsp] RE-S-X6-64G-BB

On 21/May/16 22:51, quinn snyder wrote: > isnt the point of hypervisor on re/rp meant to support $os within vm? > i know cisco is moving towards contaniers-in-vm for packaging inside of > ncs6000 platform. i expect with hardware revisions -- other platforms with > high-impact in core/edge

Re: [j-nsp] RE-S-X6-64G-BB

On 21/May/16 22:26, Saku Ytti wrote: > All vendors are pimping this like it's something customers have been > crying for ages. But who actually is planning to use their routers are > general purpose compute? > What advantages can it have? It will obviously not affect the > reliability of the

Re: [j-nsp] RE-S-X6-64G-BB

> On May 21, 2016, at 13:26, Saku Ytti wrote: > > All vendors are pimping this like it's something customers have been > crying for ages. But who actually is planning to use their routers are > general purpose compute? isnt the point of hypervisor on re/rp meant to support $os

Re: [j-nsp] RE-S-X6-64G-BB

On 21 May 2016 at 23:15, Mark Tinka wrote: > I know this new RE supports virtualization, and changes the way we have > been used to interacting with Junos from that perspective, however, > since only one RE is active at any one time, you only have 64GB of RAM > available to

Re: [j-nsp] RE-S-X6-64G-BB

On 20/May/16 15:03, Colton Conor wrote: > Anyone using the RE-S-X6-64G-BB's? How do they perform compared to previous > versions of the RE's? That's a ton of ram, and with two of them install the > system will have 128GB of ram! The RE-S-X6-64G-BB requires one to run a > newer version of Junos