On 2019-09-02 8:07 p.m., Brandon Martin wrote:
On 9/2/19 6:04 PM, Mark Tinka wrote:
Like how about 8-16*100GE single Trio PCI card with no-questions
asked, specification released, would there be a market? I like to
think there would be.
Oh my gosh this. Especially if the docs are truly
I'd like to register my interest as well. I think an open hardware platform
will do a lot to move the industry forward.
On Mon, Sep 2, 2019, 10:09 PM Brandon Martin
wrote:
> On 9/2/19 6:04 PM, Mark Tinka wrote:
> >> Like how about 8-16*100GE single Trio PCI card with no-questions
> >> asked,
On 9/2/19 4:40 PM, Seth Mattinen wrote:
> May the world come to an end if someone dares to have an independent
> thought or shares original information that can't be backed up by at
> least 50 crosschecked references.
Actually, independent thought or original information is welcome to
anyone
On 9/2/19 6:04 PM, Mark Tinka wrote:
Like how about 8-16*100GE single Trio PCI card with no-questions
asked, specification released, would there be a market? I like to
think there would be.
I'd be down for this.
Mark.
Oh my gosh this. Especially if the docs are truly public (i.e.
available
Seth Mattinen wrote:
May the world come to an end if someone dares to have an independent
thought or shares original information that can't be backed up by at
least 50 crosschecked references.
Unlike references to facts, references to thought are required when
the thought is not purely
On 9/2/19 15:02, Masataka Ohta wrote:
then applying that very same standard of
evidence to your assertions leads directly to "can safely be ignored"
As I already wrote:
> The following page by Geoff Huston is better than your delusion.
> http://www.potaroo.net/ispcolumn/2001-03-bgp.html
Valdis Klētnieks wrote:
If you think we should blindly believe your unfounded statement
not supported by any verifiable reference, that is the
condescending behavior.
As you can see, that you finally mentioned rfc1518 as reference
helped a lot to suppress unfounded and, thus, useless messages
On the MX204 that is..
Sent from my iPhone
> On Sep 2, 2019, at 3:27 PM, Kenneth McRae via NANOG wrote:
>
> 1 Gig is supported on later release versions
>
> Sent from my iPhone
>
>> On Sep 2, 2019, at 1:49 AM, Mark Tinka wrote:
>>
>>
>>
>>> On 2/Sep/19 10:28, Hank Nussbacher wrote:
>>>
1 Gig is supported on later release versions
Sent from my iPhone
> On Sep 2, 2019, at 1:49 AM, Mark Tinka wrote:
>
>
>
>> On 2/Sep/19 10:28, Hank Nussbacher wrote:
>>
>>
>>
>> What about handling LAG on 1Gb/sec links? That is a major showstopper
>> if indeed it is missing:
>>
>>
On 2/Sep/19 20:00, adamv0...@netconsultings.com wrote:
> I'm afraid I have some bad news for you then, since the new metro portfolio
> (NCS) from Cisco is all XR.
> But on the upside it means better support for YANG...
We'll see what happens when we get to that bridge.
Mark.
On 2/Sep/19 17:07, Saku Ytti wrote:
> Like how about 8-16*100GE single Trio PCI card with no-questions
> asked, specification released, would there be a market? I like to
> think there would be.
I'd be down for this.
Mark.
On 2/Sep/19 14:52, Baldur Norddahl wrote:
>
> Maturity is such a subjective word.
As service provider operations go, maturity.
> But yes there are plenty of options for routing protocols on a Linux.
> Every internet exchange is running BGP on Linux for the route server
> after all.
Not
On Mon, 2 Sep 2019 at 20:51, wrote:
> Judging from mpc7 with hyper-mode I'm sceptical, but as always subject to
> test results.
We saw 25% pps advantage with hyper-mode on MX10k (which supposedly is
same as high-performance-mode). New linecards will be
high-performance-mode out-of-box. I think
> Mark Tinka
> Sent: Monday, September 2, 2019 9:22 AM
>
>
> On 8/Aug/19 16:50, Tom Hill wrote:
>
> >
> > No-one has mentioned it yet, so for completeness big C have the ASR
> > 9901 (not 9001) with traditional router bits in it.
>
> This is the closest competitor to the MX204 as in-house
> Olivier Benghozi
> Sent: Monday, September 2, 2019 5:02 PM
>
> By the way they now say in this KB article that they implemented a «high
> performance mode» for MX204 / MX10003 with some «set chassis fpc slot
> high-performance-mode».
> Anyone wiling to test? :)
>
Judging from mpc7 with
On Mon Sep 02, 2019 at 05:07:07PM +0100, t...@pelican.org wrote:
> On Monday, 2 September, 2019 15:03, "Valdis Kl??tnieks"
> said:
>
> > Hardened? Is this just "will survive in a not-well-cooled telco closet"
> > hardening,
> > or something more unusual?
>
> I don't see specs yet, but I
> Denys Fedoryshchenko
> Sent: Monday, September 2, 2019 2:24 PM
>
> On 2019-09-02 15:52, Baldur Norddahl wrote:
> >
> > Maturity is such a subjective word. But yes there are plenty of
> > options for routing protocols on a Linux. Every internet exchange is
> > running BGP on Linux for the route
> On 2. Sep 2019, at 15:49, Valdis Klētnieks wrote:
>
> *plonk* (the sound of an email address dropping into a not-often-used ignore
> file)
mmhmm nice nerd burn. ouchie.
On Monday, 2 September, 2019 15:03, "Valdis Klētnieks"
said:
> Hardened? Is this just "will survive in a not-well-cooled telco closet"
> hardening,
> or something more unusual?
I don't see specs yet, but I would expect it's the former, similar to the MX104
against the rest of the MX
By the way they now say in this KB article that they implemented a «high
performance mode» for MX204 / MX10003 with some «set chassis fpc slot
high-performance-mode».
Anyone wiling to test? :)
> Le 2 sept. 2019 à 15:23, Denys Fedoryshchenko a
> écrit :
>
> From snabbco discussion, issue
On Mon, 2 Sep 2019 at 17:48, Denys Fedoryshchenko
wrote:
> Of course, they are much stronger (and cheaper in $/bps or $/pps) when
> it comes to L2/L3 lookup, basic stateless filters, simple QoS.
> But can Trio perform stateful firewall filtering for millions of flows+
> lot of mpps that Xeon
On 2019-09-02 17:16, Saku Ytti wrote:
On Mon, 2 Sep 2019 at 16:26, Denys Fedoryshchenko
wrote:
or some QFX, for example, Broadcom Tomahawk 32x100G switches only do
line-rate with >= 250B packets according to datasheets.
Only is peculiar term here. 100Gbps is 148Mpps, give or take 100PPM,
at
On Mon, 2 Sep 2019 at 16:26, Denys Fedoryshchenko
wrote:
> or some QFX, for example, Broadcom Tomahawk 32x100G switches only do
> line-rate with >= 250B packets according to datasheets.
Only is peculiar term here. 100Gbps is 148Mpps, give or take 100PPM,
at 250B it's still some 50Mpps. Times 32
Baldur Norddahl wrote on 02/09/2019 13:52:
You can move a lot of traffic even with an old leftover server.
Especially if you are not concerned with moving 64 bytes DDoS at line
speed, because likely you would be down anyway in that case.
indeed, and there are very few problems that might
On Mon, 02 Sep 2019 10:02:55 +0100, Aled Morris via NANOG said:
> The forthcoming Juniper ACX700 sounds like a good fit for metro Ethernet
> with 4x100G and 24x10G in a shallow 1U hardened form factor.
Hardened? Is this just "will survive in a not-well-cooled telco closet"
hardening,
or
On Mon, 02 Sep 2019 14:02:43 +0900, Masataka Ohta said:
> If you think we should blindly believe your unfounded statement
> not supported by any verifiable reference, that is the
> condescending behavior.
Well Masataka... If "Owen DeLong, who was widely known to have been in an
actual job
> On Sep 2, 2019, at 9:33 AM, Tony Finch wrote:
>
> Patrick W. Gilmore wrote:
>>
>> This time I waited for 768,000. (Everyone happy now?)
>
> I thought the magic number for breaking old Cisco gear was 786432
> (768 * 1024) ... there was a panic about it earlier this year but growth
>
Patrick W. Gilmore wrote:
>
> This time I waited for 768,000. (Everyone happy now?)
I thought the magic number for breaking old Cisco gear was 786432
(768 * 1024) ... there was a panic about it earlier this year but growth
slowed so it didn't happen as soon as they feared.
On 2019-09-02 15:52, Baldur Norddahl wrote:
Maturity is such a subjective word. But yes there are plenty of
options for routing protocols on a Linux. Every internet exchange is
running BGP on Linux for the route server after all.
I am not recommending a server over MX204. I think MX204 is
man. 2. sep. 2019 10.22 skrev Mark Tinka :
>
>
> On 8/Aug/19 08:33, Baldur Norddahl wrote:
> > 45k? No no, the mx204 with enough license to do BGP is more like 20k -
> > 25k or less. It is actually quite cheap, so I doubt the OP will find
> > anything much cheaper without going used or do a
> Does anyone use Juniper 0% finance? We're looking to upgrade from 4 x MX80s
> and they are a big jump.
Last I heard, it was $250k minimum order value so you'll struggle if you're
only buying 4 units
Does anyone use Juniper 0% finance? We're looking to upgrade from 4 x MX80s
and they are a big jump.
Thanks
On 2/Sep/19 11:24, Aled Morris wrote:
>
>
> Sorry I have no inside info, only what's been released publicly.
We stayed away from the ACX5000 because the Broadcom chip in there
wasn't great for high-touch services.
I hope this ACX700 has a better plan.
Mark.
On Mon, 2 Sep 2019 at 10:14, Mark Tinka wrote:
>
>
> On 2/Sep/19 11:02, Aled Morris via NANOG wrote:
> > The forthcoming Juniper ACX700 sounds like a good fit for metro
> > Ethernet with 4x100G and 24x10G in a shallow 1U hardened form factor.
>
> Do you know what chip it's running?
>
Sorry I
On 2/Sep/19 11:02, Aled Morris via NANOG wrote:
> The forthcoming Juniper ACX700 sounds like a good fit for metro
> Ethernet with 4x100G and 24x10G in a shallow 1U hardened form factor.
Do you know what chip it's running?
Mark.
The forthcoming Juniper ACX700 sounds like a good fit for metro Ethernet
with 4x100G and 24x10G in a shallow 1U hardened form factor.
Aled
On 2/Sep/19 10:52, Brandon Martin wrote:
>
> I try to avoid them in customer-facing applications, too. And in
> intra-network situations, I don't know why you'd be LAGging 1Gbps
> links anymore.
In the backbone, we moved away from LAG's to ECMP.
The only places we run Layer 2 LAG's is on
On 9/2/19 4:49 AM, Mark Tinka wrote:
That said, in the Metro, we don't generally support LAG's toward
customers because getting policing to work reliably on them is
difficult. So we wouldn't hit this issue, although I can see how
annoying it would be for networks that prefer to do this.
I try
On 2/Sep/19 10:28, Saku Ytti wrote:
> I think the Baldur's proposal works for organisation with few and
> highly skilled employees. But for larger organisation the CAPEX isn't
> relevant, it's the OPEX that matters and managing that magic linux box
> is going to be very OPEX heavy.
Totally
On 2/Sep/19 10:28, Hank Nussbacher wrote:
>
>
> What about handling LAG on 1Gb/sec links? That is a major showstopper
> if indeed it is missing:
>
> https://www.juniper.net/documentation/en_US/junos/topics/reference/configuration-statement/speed-gigether-options.html
>
> • On
Mark Tinka writes:
> The MX80 and MX104 have no business being in any modern conversation
> these days :-).
Except for the other MX-80, of course, which are better than ever.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/MX-80
Bjørn
On Mon, 2 Sep 2019 at 11:24, Mark Tinka wrote:
> > 45k? No no, the mx204 with enough license to do BGP is more like 20k -
> > 25k or less. It is actually quite cheap, so I doubt the OP will find
> > anything much cheaper without going used or do a software router.
> >
> > I feel it should be
On 9/Aug/19 20:18, Forrest Christian (List Account) wrote:
>
> Assuming one can find a used mx204, what is the official juniper
> licensing policy?
They are too new... doubt you'll find any pre-owned units on sale.
Mark.
On 02/09/2019 11:16, Mark Tinka wrote:
On 8/Aug/19 05:33, Brandon Martin wrote:
MX204 is a very nice pizza box router for service providers. I'm not
aware of anything quite like it in terms of having a mature control
plane. I like the JunOS config language better than Cisco-style that
On 9/Aug/19 08:06, Radu-Adrian Feurdean wrote:
> 9001, while approaching EoL, can be a good solution if your needs are limited
> : 8x10G + 20x1G, you should get it for a good price - refurbished.
Although better than the MX80, those are in the, as we say in Africa,
"the same WhatsApp group"
On 8/Aug/19 16:50, Tom Hill wrote:
>
> No-one has mentioned it yet, so for completeness big C have the ASR 9901
> (not 9001) with traditional router bits in it.
This is the closest competitor to the MX204 as in-house silicon-based
boxes go.
But for me, I've always felt that IOS XR is too
On 8/Aug/19 14:20, Eric Kuhnke wrote:
> I am not certain on the value of having 1GbE interfaces natively on a
> $25k plus router in the year 2019. Pair the router with a nice 1RU
> 1/10GbE switch installed directly next to it with full metro Ethernet
> layer 2 feature set.
>
> Anything that
On 8/Aug/19 08:33, Baldur Norddahl wrote:
> 45k? No no, the mx204 with enough license to do BGP is more like 20k -
> 25k or less. It is actually quite cheap, so I doubt the OP will find
> anything much cheaper without going used or do a software router.
>
> I feel it should be mentioned that a
On 8/Aug/19 06:46, Randy Carpenter wrote:
> If you don't require redundant routing engines, there is nothing from
> Juniper that will cost less and have the capacity you require. In
> fact, there really aren't any cheaper MX options at all, other than
> the kneecapped MX80 and MX104 variants.
On 8/Aug/19 05:33, Brandon Martin wrote:
>
>
> MX204 is a very nice pizza box router for service providers. I'm not
> aware of anything quite like it in terms of having a mature control
> plane. I like the JunOS config language better than Cisco-style that
> most other folks use.
The
50 matches
Mail list logo
