xchange>
>> <https://twitter.com/mdwestix>
>> The Brothers WISP <http://www.thebrotherswisp.com/>
>> <https://www.facebook.com/thebrotherswisp>
>> <https://www.youtube.com/channel/UCXSdfxQv7SpoRQYNyLwntZg>
>> --
>> *From: *"Mark Tinka&qu
inkedin.com/company/midwest-internet-exchange>
> <https://twitter.com/mdwestix>
> The Brothers WISP <http://www.thebrotherswisp.com/>
> <https://www.facebook.com/thebrotherswisp>
> <https://www.youtube.com/channel/UCXSdfxQv7SpoRQYNyLwntZg>
> ------
&
Sounds more like a Huawei roadmap oops, didn't mean to mention names :)
On Sun, 27 Aug 2023, 07:02 Mark Tinka, wrote:
>
>
> On 8/27/23 04:52, Eric Kuhnke wrote:
>
> > I sincerely doubt there is much demand for *new* 40G these days.
> >
> > Look at the population of 40G members on major IXes.
>
rk Tinka"
To: "Mike Hammett"
Cc: nanog@nanog.org
Sent: Sunday, August 27, 2023 10:33:07 PM
Subject: Re: MX204 Virtual Chassis Setup
On 8/28/23 03:05, Mike Hammett wrote:
Well, or they simply found a potential deal on hardware that came with 40 gig
ports. 40 gigs is still
Look at the population of 100G ports at the SIX in Seattle as well. I think
there's a total of maybe four 40G members out of hundreds. 100G really is
the new 10.
On Sun, Aug 27, 2023, 10:56 PM Daniel Marks via NANOG
wrote:
> (Enterprise AS for context)
>
> This hasn’t been my experience in the
On 8/28/23 07:55, Daniel Marks wrote:
(Enterprise AS for context)
This hasn’t been my experience in the US, however we mostly deal in
tier 2 markets (I.e. Detroit, Miami, Dallas, etc…) and we have plenty
of 40G private interconnects. I don’t doubt 40G is going away, I’ve
just never had
(Enterprise AS for context)
This hasn’t been my experience in the US, however we mostly deal in tier 2
markets (I.e. Detroit, Miami, Dallas, etc…) and we have plenty of 40G private
interconnects. I don’t doubt 40G is going away, I’ve just never had trouble
using it around here.
The only time
On 8/28/23 03:05, Mike Hammett wrote:
Well, or they simply found a potential deal on hardware that came with
40 gig ports. 40 gigs is still a lot of bits to a lot of people.
For internal use, sure.
But when connecting to another AS, the chances of them supporting 40Gbps
in one or more
Tinka"
To: nanog@nanog.org
Sent: Saturday, August 26, 2023 10:59:36 PM
Subject: Re: MX204 Virtual Chassis Setup
On 8/27/23 04:52, Eric Kuhnke wrote:
> I sincerely doubt there is much demand for *new* 40G these days.
>
> Look at the population of 40G members on major IXes.
>
On 8/27/23 04:52, Eric Kuhnke wrote:
I sincerely doubt there is much demand for *new* 40G these days.
Look at the population of 40G members on major IXes.
People have either one 10G, 2 x 10G, or 100G.
40G was a dead-end 9 years ago and much so more now.
We have customers that sometimes
I sincerely doubt there is much demand for *new* 40G these days.
Look at the population of 40G members on major IXes.
People have either one 10G, 2 x 10G, or 100G.
40G was a dead-end 9 years ago and much so more now.
On Wed, Aug 23, 2023 at 9:38 AM Aaron Gould wrote:
> some of these port
On 8/26/23 00:54, Tom Beecher wrote:
It would, sure. Instead of storing a single prefix/next-hop with flags
in memory, you now have to store every prefix/next-hop that you are
announcing as well.
Indeed.
But it has been worth it. The load balancing from PE-to-PE has been
fantastic,
>
> On MX480 16GB RE's running two full BGP feeds but hundreds of customer
> sessions, Add-Paths really eats into RAM.
>
It would, sure. Instead of storing a single prefix/next-hop with flags in
memory, you now have to store every prefix/next-hop that you are announcing
as well.
On Fri, Aug 25,
No VC here, unsure if it works, but yeah, we like them and deploy them in pairs
for metro-e (ce) and cbh for vlans carried over mpls pw
Reliable for us
Aaron
> On Aug 25, 2023, at 4:40 PM, Mark Tinka wrote:
>
>
>
>> On 8/25/23 19:16, Tom Beecher wrote:
>>
>> In my experience and testing
On 8/25/23 19:16, Tom Beecher wrote:
In my experience and testing with them, you have a decent bit of
headroom past the published RIB/FIB limits before they'll fall over.
They are holding up pretty well for us, mainly because we do a lot more
BGP on MX480's than on MX204's. We use the
>
> On another note, the potential issue we might run into is pressure on
> control plane memory on the MX204 for us that run BGP Add-Paths. You can
> always upgrade the RE on an MX240/480/960, but the MX204 is fixed (and
> last time I checked, fiddling with Juniper RE memory was generally
>
On 8/23/23 17:14, Matt Erculiani wrote:
Does Fusion not make sense in this case? I've not had a ton of
experience with it, but it does well to add a crazy port count to an
otherwise very port limited device.
In small edge PoP's, we attach an Arista 1U switch with tons of 1/10Gbps
ports
Aaron Gould писал(а) 2023-08-23 12:38:
some of these port capabilities are weird to me. like on the
ACX7100-48L you can do 4x100 or 8x50, but ONLY one 40g ?!
me@7100> show chassis pic pic-slot 0 fpc-slot 0 | find 400
48 0 1x400G 1x100G 1x40G 4x100G 2x100G 8x50G 2x50G 4x25G
4x10G
On 8/23/23 18:29, t...@pelican.org wrote:
Not Trio, and different PLM :)
Yes, aware... I was just speaking in general for what is likely to be a
very popular platform :-).
MX304 (well, strictly LMIC16) has the same restriction, and a need for another entry in the
magic port checker
some of these port capabilities are weird to me. like on the
ACX7100-48L you can do 4x100 or 8x50, but ONLY one 40g ?!
me@7100> show chassis pic pic-slot 0 fpc-slot 0 | find 400
48 0 1x400G 1x100G 1x40G 4x100G 2x100G 8x50G 2x50G 4x25G
4x10G 3x100G
49 0 1x400G 1x100G
On Wednesday, 23 August, 2023 16:33, "Mark Tinka" said:
[faceplate oversubscription]
> On the new ACX line, yes.
Not Trio, and different PLM :)
> We don't mess around with any other MX products, so not sure (although
> we are still yet to deploy the MPC10E's and the MX304).
MX304 (well,
On 8/23/23 17:01, Tom Beecher wrote:
I'm not sure they allow oversubscription on anything in the MX line
anymore honestly. I could be wrong, I've been face down in a specific
subset of equipment for a while, someone please correct me if I am.
On the new ACX line, yes.
If I look at the
Does Fusion not make sense in this case? I've not had a ton of experience
with it, but it does well to add a crazy port count to an otherwise very
port limited device.
-Matt
On Wed, Aug 23, 2023 at 9:01 AM Tom Beecher wrote:
> What would have been nice is if Juniper oversubscribed the face
>
> What would have been nice is if Juniper oversubscribed the face plate of
> this platform, as most people are more likely to run out of ports than
> they would the 400Gbps forwarding capacity of Trio.
>
You're restricted to 400G because they did fixed lane allocations to the EA
chip on the PFE
On 8/23/23 08:00, Pascal Masha wrote:
Thanks just wanted to know whether it was a supported feature.
What would have been nice is if Juniper oversubscribed the face plate of
this platform, as most people are more likely to run out of ports than
they would the 400Gbps forwarding capacity
Thanks just wanted to know whether it was a supported feature.
On Tue, 22 Aug 2023, 21:00 Chris, wrote:
> No, but they do however work just great as an active-active pair of
> routers when cross linked and iBGP peered to each other and everything
> downstream connected to each one.
>
> Chris
>
No, but they do however work just great as an active-active pair of routers
when cross linked and iBGP peered to each other and everything downstream
connected to each one.
Chris
On Mon, Aug 21, 2023 at 9:43 AM Pascal Masha wrote:
> Hello,
>
> Does the MX204 support virtual chassis setup?
>
>
On 8/21/23 16:51, Ryan Hamel wrote:
Paschal,
It is not supported, nor is it recommended for redundancy in a routed
setup. Please describe your (desired) topology, that way the community
can discuss alternatives.
Sounds like the OP wants to build a chassis-based system out of
, 2023 7:41 AM
To: nanog@nanog.org
Subject: MX204 Virtual Chassis Setup
Caution: This is an external email and may be malicious. Please take care when
clicking links or opening attachments.
Hello,
Does the MX204 support virtual chassis setup?
Regards,
Paschal Masha
Hello,
Does the MX204 support virtual chassis setup?
Regards,
Paschal Masha
30 matches
Mail list logo
