Hey,
On 23 April 2018 at 16:25, wrote:
> Well I envy you then :).
> But was it for more-less like to like HW? -say modular card in both cases
> -similar physical/logical BW to fabric and similar modules with similar port
> count?
Yes.
> Was it just one time RPF discount or a pricing framew
> Saku Ytti [mailto:s...@ytti.fi]
> Sent: Monday, April 23, 2018 10:20 AM
>
> On 23 April 2018 at 11:34, wrote:
>
> > Well first of all juniper made it this far only because it's a cheap
> > alternative to cisco, and you always get what you pay for.
>
> I and lot others on the list would disag
On 23/Apr/18 11:20, Saku Ytti wrote:
> The SMU is fallacy in my opinion, the SMUs are marketed as spot fixes
> to specific DDTS, while they really are just shipping newer version
> for set of binaries. So you get into this confusing state where to
> install DDTSx you must uninstall DDDTSy and in
On 23 April 2018 at 11:34, wrote:
> Well first of all juniper made it this far only because it's a cheap
> alternative to cisco, and you always get what you pay for.
I and lot others on the list would disagree. Juniper was and still is
fundamentally automation friendly, where as even IOS-XR is
> Aaron Gould [mailto:aar...@gvtc.com]
> Sent: Wednesday, April 18, 2018 2:44 PM
>
> Really? I'm hearing rumblings of pain in new XR upgrades
>
> google - [c-nsp] Cisco ASR99xx 64-bit upgrade 6.3.1 to 6.3.2
>
> or
>
> https://lists.gt.net/cisco/nsp/199480
>
> I can't say from experience s
gt; Sent: Friday, April 20, 2018 6:37 PM
> To: bo...@pobox.com
> Cc: juniper-nsp@puck.nether.net
> Subject: Re: [j-nsp] Going Juniper
>
>
>
> On 04/13/2018 02:30 PM, bo...@pobox.com wrote:
>> On Mon, 9 Apr 2018, mike+j...@willitsonline.com wrote:
>>
>>> Id even l
al Message-
From: juniper-nsp [mailto:juniper-nsp-boun...@puck.nether.net] On Behalf Of
mike+j...@willitsonline.com
Sent: Friday, April 20, 2018 6:37 PM
To: bo...@pobox.com
Cc: juniper-nsp@puck.nether.net
Subject: Re: [j-nsp] Going Juniper
On 04/13/2018 02:30 PM, bo...@pobox.com wrote:
>
On 04/13/2018 02:30 PM, bo...@pobox.com wrote:
> On Mon, 9 Apr 2018, mike+j...@willitsonline.com wrote:
>
>> Id even like to do cgnat for up to 5000 users but not sure if a
>> single box setup would be wise.
>
> I'm curious why you and other service providers are interested in
> CGNAT when IPv4 a
On 19/Apr/18 16:50, Josh Richesin wrote:
> I think it is by design as well, but really defeating the purpose therefore
> misleading us – the loyal customers. Juniper is an excellent platform, but
> sometimes you want / need to start small and grow into a device. Like
> previously mentioned,
CONFIDENTIAL and/or SENSITIVE Information Enclosed. This message cannot be
forwarded, printed, or otherwise used without the sole and express permission
of Sureline Broadband. Confidentiality Notice: This message and all attachments
are subject to the Electronic Communications Privacy Act, Title
The way I've deployed my dual MX104's for CGNat using the MS-MIC-16G has
been great for us. I now have ~5,000 DSL subscribers and one Cable Modem
CMTS community (/24 - ~250 subs) all sitting behind those dual MX104's
The MX104's are both similar...
- dual 10 gig connected with ae lag
- mpls e
On 18/Apr/18 09:52, Gert Doering wrote:
> Judging from the recent threads on JunOS upgrade pains, seems they did...
>
> "New feature: more annoying software upgrades than IOS XR!"
I was gonna say, "Except that" :-).
Mark.
signature.asc
Description: OpenPGP digital signature
_
On 11/Apr/18 13:08, Ola Thoresen wrote:
>
>
> But as you say, you can easily use the exact same hardware in a
> regular L2 setup, the thing you gain from the satellite setup is
> central management of only the routers, which can be a time and
> management saver.
Isn't that was SDN was for :-)
On 11/Apr/18 12:51, Saku Ytti wrote:
> I have strong dislike to satellite solutions. I'd rather even run L2
> backhaul than satellite. There tends to be all kind of catches and
> esoteric differences between 'native' port and satellite port, and
> those are not documented anywhere, probably not
On 11/Apr/18 11:51, James Bensley wrote:
> I had heard (more or less from the horses mouth) that the MX104's were
> initially developed for an Indian telco - they basically wanted MX80s
> but with a higher temperature rating and dual REs, allowing them to be
> used in mobile base station sites.
On 11/Apr/18 11:31, Saku Ytti wrote:
> I suspect more correct reason is that they don't see sufficient market
> potential in device like MX104. I think Cisco and Juniper are very
> confused about market, they appear to think entire market consists
> solely of large scale DC providers. That only
On 11/Apr/18 00:23, Olivier Benghozi wrote:
> I suppose/hope that the product manager who took such decision is now in a
> madhouse.
+1.
Mark.
___
juniper-nsp mailing list juniper-nsp@puck.nether.net
https://puck.nether.net/mailman/listinfo/juniper
On 10/Apr/18 15:10, Josh Baird wrote:
> I have found the licensing costs on the MX104 to be pretty ridiculous. I
> can buy a brand new MX204 with plenty of 10Gbps interfaces for cheaper than
> it would be up upgrade the "base" MX104 (MX104-MX5 bundle) to enable the
> four of the built-in 10Gbps
On 10/Apr/18 05:07, Chris via juniper-nsp wrote:
>
> I can't speak for the MX240, but we have some deployments of the
> MX104, MX80 and the vMX.
>
> For the MX104 (and the MX80) the main limitation they have is that the
> CPU on the routing engine is terribly slow. This can be a problem for
>
On 18 April 2018 at 18:10, Jared Mauch wrote:
> Just because DNA could be sequenced, didn’t mean it was easy/cheap/accessible.
It indeed was not. But now it's 350EUR, world changes.
There are incapable operators, for sure. At least IOS offers for those
simple method of prefix-list in/out, when
> On Apr 18, 2018, at 11:06 AM, Saku Ytti wrote:
>
> Juniper was founded 1996
> Lua was released 1993
> Ruby was released 1995
>
> And of course there was TCL before, and I'm sure other solutions
> before that. Embedding programming language to your tools isn't very
> new notion. Maybe route-m
Juniper was founded 1996
Lua was released 1993
Ruby was released 1995
And of course there was TCL before, and I'm sure other solutions
before that. Embedding programming language to your tools isn't very
new notion. Maybe route-maps are sufficiently simple to justify their
existence, but RPL decid
Hi,
On Wed, Apr 18, 2018 at 05:48:23PM +0300, Saku Ytti wrote:
> Personally I'm not sure why vendors bother inventing some DSL for
> this, instead of just using prior art like lua or mruby where they
> offer prefixes as objects with plenty of useful methods.
"prior art"?
Fairly sure JunOS is 10
On 18 April 2018 at 16:50, Gert Doering wrote:
> I really *really* like RPL. And the amazingly fast BGP in general.
>
> Route-Policies in JunOS seem to be a bit... "surprisy".
I think RPL is probably slightly better, but it's close one and both
have some negative/positive.
Personally I'm not s
Hi,
On Wed, Apr 18, 2018 at 08:35:23AM -0500, Aaron Gould wrote:
> Like what ? What are those things you really wish Juniper would do that
> Cisco did in XR ?
>
> I've been working with XR for several years now, and I'm really liking what
> I'm seeing in Junos.
I really *really* like RPL. And
Really? I'm hearing rumblings of pain in new XR upgrades
google - [c-nsp] Cisco ASR99xx 64-bit upgrade 6.3.1 to 6.3.2
or
https://lists.gt.net/cisco/nsp/199480
I can't say from experience since I'm sitting on 4.1.2 (lol, hey, it
works!) I recall XR and PIES being for straightforward,
Like what ? What are those things you really wish Juniper would do that
Cisco did in XR ?
I've been working with XR for several years now, and I'm really liking what
I'm seeing in Junos.
Don't get me wrong, I really like XR. I'm liking Junos just as much... and
my appreciation for Junos is grow
2018-04-18 14:07 GMT+02:00 Julien Goodwin :
> On 18/04/18 17:52, Gert Doering wrote:
> > Hi,
> >
> > On Wed, Apr 18, 2018 at 08:37:51AM +0100, adamv0...@netconsultings.com
> wrote:
> >> Ha, I really wish Juniper would look at what XR did on whole host of
> things
> >> :)
> >
> > Judging from the r
On 18/04/18 17:52, Gert Doering wrote:
> Hi,
>
> On Wed, Apr 18, 2018 at 08:37:51AM +0100, adamv0...@netconsultings.com wrote:
>> Ha, I really wish Juniper would look at what XR did on whole host of things
>> :)
>
> Judging from the recent threads on JunOS upgrade pains, seems they did...
>
> "N
Hi,
On Wed, Apr 18, 2018 at 08:37:51AM +0100, adamv0...@netconsultings.com wrote:
> Ha, I really wish Juniper would look at what XR did on whole host of things
> :)
Judging from the recent threads on JunOS upgrade pains, seems they did...
"New feature: more annoying software upgrades than IOS XR
> Jared Mauch
> Sent: Wednesday, April 18, 2018 12:39 AM
>
>
>
> > On Apr 17, 2018, at 7:02 PM, Saku Ytti wrote:
> >
> >
> > DDoS protection out-of-the-box is for all practical purposes not
> > configured at all, which is unfortunate as that is what most people
> > run. When configured correctl
administrators ;)
- Ross
-Original Message-
From: Jared Mauch [mailto:ja...@puck.nether.net]
Sent: Tuesday, April 17, 2018 7:39 PM
To: Saku Ytti
Cc: Ross Halliday; juniper-nsp@puck.nether.net
Subject: Re: [j-nsp] Going Juniper
> On Apr 17, 2018, at 7:02 PM, Saku Ytti wrote:
>
> On Apr 17, 2018, at 7:02 PM, Saku Ytti wrote:
>
>
> DDoS protection out-of-the-box is for all practical purposes not
> configured at all, which is unfortunate as that is what most people
> run. When configured correctly Trio has best CoPP I know of in the
> market, certainly better than Cisc
Hey Ross,
> The low-end MXes can do a lot of things, but that doesn't mean you SHOULD
> necessarily do them. Anything CPU-heavy is a good example. Convergence time
> on three full feeds takes about 10-15 minutes in my experience, say in the
> case a major upstream drops. This isn't a big deal f
A little late to the party, but I've been accused of worse.
We transitioned our network from Cisco 6500 platform to MX104s, and at the same
time converged our Internet Edge onto those MXes too. It's the only Juniper
router I'm aware of that actually fits *nicely* into a two-post rack, and they
On 11/04/2018 10:51, James Bensley wrote:
> I would agree with
> you that low port coun't, good, and reasonably priced mixed 1G/10G
> devices aren't plentiful in choice from vendors. We open a lot of
> small PoPs so stuff like ME3600X/ASR920s, ASR9001, MX104 are great for
> us but each with their o
>>> On 11 April 2018 at 13:43, Ola Thoresen wrote:
>>> Granted at least JNPR offering allows you to run same device as pure
>>> L2, with Cisco offering it is satellite-only box, cannot be used as
>>> L2.
>>
>> I know what you mean, but I must say that this time it seems like they have
>> more or
On 11. april 2018 14:12, Alexandre Guimaraes wrote:
Hello everyone!
Last notice that I have about Junos fusion, some features doesn’t work in to
satellite ports, like ethernet ccc.
Did you guys that use, can confirm that, or all features are available?
I did set up a l2circuit between a vl
Hello everyone!
Last notice that I have about Junos fusion, some features doesn’t work in to
satellite ports, like ethernet ccc.
Did you guys that use, can confirm that, or all features are available?
att
Alexandre
Em 11 de abr de 2018, à(s) 08:11, Ola Thoresen escreveu:
> On 11. april 2018
On 11. april 2018 12:51, Saku Ytti wrote:
On 11 April 2018 at 13:43, Ola Thoresen wrote:
We have recently started playing with MX204 and Junos Fusion, and that makes
a really nice setup.
With either EX4300 (for 1G) or QFX5100 (for 10G), you get a lot of ports and
a great routing engine for a
On 11 April 2018 at 13:43, Ola Thoresen wrote:
> We have recently started playing with MX204 and Junos Fusion, and that makes
> a really nice setup.
> With either EX4300 (for 1G) or QFX5100 (for 10G), you get a lot of ports and
> a great routing engine for a "decent" cost.
I have strong dislike
On 11/04/18 19:31, Saku Ytti wrote:
> I suspect more correct reason is that they don't see sufficient market
> potential in device like MX104. I think Cisco and Juniper are very
> confused about market, they appear to think entire market consists
> solely of large scale DC providers. That only addr
On 11. april 2018 11:31, Saku Ytti wrote:
On 11 April 2018 at 04:31, Chris via juniper-nsp
wrote:
Since the MX104 has user replacable RE's I really wish Juniper would at
least offer a different option with a more beefy CPU/RAM but I don't think
that would ever happen...
I think JNPR believes
On 11 April 2018 at 10:31, Saku Ytti wrote:
> New RE for MX104 was on the table early on in the MX104 history, but
> then JNPR changed tracks, citing XEON not being thermally possible on
> it.
I had heard (more or less from the horses mouth) that the MX104's were
initially developed for an Indian
On 11 April 2018 at 04:31, Chris via juniper-nsp
wrote:
> Since the MX104 has user replacable RE's I really wish Juniper would at
> least offer a different option with a more beefy CPU/RAM but I don't think
> that would ever happen...
I think JNPR believes MX204 is the 'next gen MX104'. I bet if
Hi,
On 10/04/2018 11:37 PM, mike+j...@willitsonline.com wrote:
I know it can be set up and run like a champ and do some (undefined)
number of gigabits without issue. What concerns me is that there are
performance limitations in these software only platforms based on your
processor/bus/card choic
Hi,
While PPC is clearly slower than x86 stuff, the problem is that JunOS should
have never been compiled for this architecture. I suppose/hope that the product
manager who took such decision is now in a madhouse.
As Saku Ytti wrote in NANOG ML in 2014 (when comparing Cisco 6500/7600 and
MX80/
On Tue, Apr 10, 2018 at 08:37:41AM -0700, mike+j...@willitsonline.com wrote:
> On 04/09/2018 08:07 PM, Chris via juniper-nsp wrote:
> > For the MX104 (and the MX80) the main limitation they have is that the
> > CPU on the routing engine is terribly slow. This can be a problem for
> > you if you are
FSVO tens Gbps and easily.
I think INTC is quoting DPDK for hundreds of Gbps for latest XEONs.
But everything depends on what you're actually doing, as it's
run-to-completion it has highly variant pps performance depending on
what is being done. Do you have filters? How large FIB? uRPF?
10Gbps i
There are x86 based routing platforms doing many tens of Gbps easily in
software. Things like vpp.io, DPDK, and others are driving things like FRR,
Cumulus, and now TNSR drastically forward.
On Tue, Apr 10, 2018, 10:40 AM wrote:
> On 04/09/2018 08:07 PM, Chris via juniper-nsp wrote:
> > Hi,
> >
On 04/09/2018 08:07 PM, Chris via juniper-nsp wrote:
> Hi,
>
> On 10/04/2018 9:45 AM, mike+j...@willitsonline.com wrote:
>> I see there is a terrific amount of used mx104 and mx240 out there
>> and the specs all seem great. What I'm looking to do is have 2x 10g
>> feeds, route bgp, do flow exp
Mike,
For 20K you can get a new MX204 (not to be confused with MX240). However, I
don't think the MX204 support CGNAT if needed, but I could be wrong. But I
wouldn't touch a MX80 or MX104 if buying new.
On Mon, Apr 9, 2018 at 8:45 PM, wrote:
> Greetings,
>
> I am looking for some advice con
Hi,
On 10/04/2018 11:07 AM, Chris via juniper-nsp wrote:
I also have some vMX's deployed (they are running on top of Dell R740's
with 3 x Intel X710 cards to give 12 x 10G interfaces). The painful part
on getting the vMX to work was the host setup with KVM - the documents
are severly lacking o
I have found the licensing costs on the MX104 to be pretty ridiculous. I
can buy a brand new MX204 with plenty of 10Gbps interfaces for cheaper than
it would be up upgrade the "base" MX104 (MX104-MX5 bundle) to enable the
four of the built-in 10Gbps interfaces and additional chassis throughput.
O
On Tue, Apr 10, 2018 at 11:07:06AM +0800, Chris via juniper-nsp wrote:
> to need their hardware, the vMX suites my needs just fine. Juniper does
> provide a (limited) demo of the vMX, happy to send you the install guide I
> wrote up for getting it working on KVM with CentOS 7.4 (Ubuntu is also
> su
I'm literally up working right now in a maintenance window throwing one of
my cable modem cmts communities behind my pair of mx104's... I'm excited to
finally start natting my cable modems...
Previously I have natted all 6,000 of my dsl customers behind this same pair
of mx104's.
I do cgnat via m
Hi,
On 10/04/2018 9:45 AM, mike+j...@willitsonline.com wrote:
I see there is a terrific amount of used mx104 and mx240 out there
and the specs all seem great. What I'm looking to do is have 2x 10g
feeds, route bgp, do flow exporting, and do a certain amount of ingress
filtering to protect t
Hi Mike,
An MX104 can certainly give you all those features. Be aware CGNAT needs an
MS-MIC and flow exports require a license.
You might be able to get the base bundle under $20k but add the extras and
it will be over.
Mike G
On 10 April 2018 at 11:45, wrote:
> Greetings,
>
> I am lookin
58 matches
Mail list logo
