lnet, ipmi, web scenarios, etc
(never face a coirner-case that can't be monitored so far)
Really awesome at infrastructure level.
Jean
-Original Message-
From: NANOG On Behalf Of Saku Ytti
Sent: May 17, 2021 3:34 AM
To: Sander Steffann
Cc: Michael Fiumano ; nanog list
Subject: R
On Mon, 17 May 2021 at 00:22, Sander Steffann wrote:
> How do you normalise? Use L2 or L3 octets stats, and use the number of
> packets to calculate the L2 and/or L1 overhead the stats are missing?
> Or do you have a better way?
That's the way one of my employers did it, and I can't think of a
Hi!
On Sat, 2021-05-15 at 11:38 +0300, Saku Ytti wrote:
> Juniper has worked like this since day1 and shockingly the world
> doesn't care, people really don't care for accuracy. CLI and SNMP are
> both L3. If you want to report L2 'set chassis fpc N pic N
> account-layer2-overhead'.
>
> However,
On Sun, 16 May 2021, Colton Conor wrote:
Looks like its replacement is the 5120 series. The question is does the 5120
have the same limitations and similar chipset?
Severly limited TCAM makes use of ACLs challenging.
--
All sounds like a bit of Broadcom to me :-).
Mark.
On 5/16/21 14:56, Colton Conor wrote:
Looks like its replacement is the 5120 series. The question is does
the 5120 have the same limitations and similar chipset?
On Sun, May 16, 2021 at 7:06 AM Jason Healy
Looks like its replacement is the 5120 series. The question is does the
5120 have the same limitations and similar chipset?
On Sun, May 16, 2021 at 7:06 AM Jason Healy
wrote:
> To echo Alain's comments earlier, the Juniper QFX 5100 series is stable,
> once you figure out all the shortcomings of
To echo Alain's comments earlier, the Juniper QFX 5100 series is stable, once
you figure out all the shortcomings of the chipset. We aren't doing anything
fancy, but have certainly bumped into our share of issues that have no
workaround because it's a limitation of the physical hardware.
On Sat, 15 May 2021 at 13:00, Mark Tinka wrote:
> Because end users will demand compensation and lawyer time for only
> getting 195Mbps on their 200Mbps service. 195Mbps is not 200Mbps.
Customers and operators both have very little idea what they are
doing. Most people have no idea what the
On 5/15/21 10:38, Saku Ytti wrote:
Not sure why 76 is better than 24. Both are wrong and will cause
operational confusion because people think the link is not congested.
This is extremely poorly understood even by professionals, so poorly
that people regularly think you can't get 100%
Hey Michael,
> If accurate interface stats are important to you, MX’s don’t support accurate
> SNMP Interface Utilization, ie they don’t comply with RFC2665/3635, which
> seems like a fairly basic thing to do but they decided not to, and has been
> impactful to me in the past. So, any SNMP
lin.mb.ca>
www.merlin.mb.ca<http://www.merlin.mb.ca/>
From: NANOG On Behalf Of
Michael Fiumano
Sent: Friday, May 14, 2021 12:06 PM
To: nanog@nanog.org
Subject: RE: Juniper hardware recommendation
If accurate interface stats are important to you, MX’s don’t support accurate
SNMP Interfa
ifHCInOctets
ifHCOutOctets
Thanks,
Michael Fiumano
*From:* NANOG *On Behalf Of *Mark Tinka
*Sent:* Monday, May 10, 2021 10:25 AM
*To:* nanog@nanog.org
*Subject:* Re: Juniper hardware recommendation
On 5/10/21 16:19, aar...@gvtc.com wrote:
I prefer MX204 over the ACX5048. The ACX5048
.
- The Elements of Programming Style (Kernighan & Plauger)
-Original Message-
From: Adam Thompson
Sent: 14 mai 2021 13:30 GMT
Subject: RE: Juniper hardware recommendation
To: Bjørn Mork
Cc: nanog@nanog.org
> OK, enough people have pointed it out :-).
>
> Clearly I was wrong about the MX
Adam Thompson wrote on 14/05/2021 15:44:
I did not know such a thing existed! Cool! Holy murdering your port density,
though. Ouch$$$.
oh the port wastage is completely criminal, but it can be a handy last
resort.
Nick
> -Original Message-
> From: Nick Hilliard
> Sent: Friday, May 14, 2021 9:40 AM
> To: Adam Thompson
> Cc: nanog@nanog.org
> Subject: Re: Juniper hardware recommendation
>
> Adam Thompson wrote on 14/05/2021 14:30:
> > However, the MX 10k family still only shows as
Adam Thompson wrote on 14/05/2021 14:30:
However, the MX 10k family still only shows as being compatible with
two QSFP cards. And yes, you can get a QSFP-SFP+ breakout cable, but
those don't let you use SFP+ CWDM/DWDM transceivers.
you can also get QSA adapters to convert from a QSFP form
On Fri, 14 May 2021 at 16:33, Adam Thompson wrote:
> However, the MX 10k family still only shows as being compatible with two QSFP
> cards. And yes, you can get a QSFP-SFP+ breakout cable, but those don't let
> you use SFP+ CWDM/DWDM transceivers.
Talk to your account team, you can get the
> Sent: Saturday, May 8, 2021 6:32 AM
> To: Adam Thompson
> Cc: Javier Gutierrez Guerra ; nanog@nanog.org
> Subject: Re: Juniper hardware recommendation
>
> Adam Thompson writes:
>
>
> > * Skip the MX 2k/10k series – they don’t support SFP+ interfaces!
>
> htt
On 5/10/21 20:22, aar...@gvtc.com wrote:
Thanks Mark. We have a ring of MX960’s currently and wanted to spare
the parts with each other, between the 960’s and 240’s…. scb’s, re’s,
mpc’s…
Ah, makes sense in that case, then.
Mark.
Thanks Mark. We have a ring of MX960’s currently and wanted to spare the parts
with each other, between the 960’s and 240’s…. scb’s, re’s, mpc’s…
-Aaron
man. 10. maj 2021 16.20 skrev :
> I prefer MX204 over the ACX5048. The ACX5048 can’t add L3 interface to an
> mpls layer 2 type of service. There are other limitations to the ACX5048
> that cause me to want to possibly replace them with MX204’s. But in
> defense of the ACX5048, we have gotten
On 5/10/21 16:19, aar...@gvtc.com wrote:
I prefer MX204 over the ACX5048. The ACX5048 can’t add L3 interface
to an mpls layer 2 type of service. There are other limitations to
the ACX5048 that cause me to want to possibly replace them with
MX204’s. But in defense of the ACX5048, we have
I prefer MX204 over the ACX5048. The ACX5048 can’t add L3 interface to an mpls
layer 2 type of service. There are other limitations to the ACX5048 that cause
me to want to possibly replace them with MX204’s. But in defense of the
ACX5048, we have gotten some good mileage (a few years now) of
On 5/8/21 23:37, Baldur Norddahl wrote:
It is possible to get a 48V 6A DC power supply as a power brick laptop
style. Just look at it as an external psu :-)
For the number of units we'd need to deploy, it doesn't make sense for us.
Easier to buy a UPS than try to convert AC to DC.
I
lør. 8. maj 2021 22.56 skrev Mark Tinka :
>
>
> On 5/8/21 22:50, Baldur Norddahl wrote:
>
> >
> > Maybe they did in the ACX710? Does most things except full routing table.
>
> We looked at it. Apart from supporting only DC power (which we don't
> like), it's Broadcom.
>
> Granted, there's a whole
On 5/8/21 22:50, Baldur Norddahl wrote:
Maybe they did in the ACX710? Does most things except full routing table.
We looked at it. Apart from supporting only DC power (which we don't
like), it's Broadcom.
Granted, there's a whole new line of ACX7XXX boxes they are putting out,
one of
lør. 8. maj 2021 09.16 skrev Mark Tinka :
>
> I just wish Juniper could make an MX204-lite, one with more 10Gbps port
> density, e.t.c.
>
Maybe they did in the ACX710? Does most things except full routing table.
We use mx204 to carry the full tables and handle ip transit. And ACX5448 +
ACX710
Adam Thompson writes:
> * Skip the MX 2k/10k series – they don’t support SFP+ interfaces!
https://apps.juniper.net/hct/model/?component=MX2K-MPC6E
https://apps.juniper.net/hct/model/?component=MIC6-10G
Bjørn
On 5/8/21 09:22, Marco Paesani wrote:
Hi Mark,
PTX series are dedicated for core backbone like "P Provider"...
Yes, this is what we are using it for.
probably you just using it like "PE Provider Edge" in this role is
much better than the MX series.
Not this. We have the MX480 for that
Hi Mark,
PTX series are dedicated for core backbone like "P Provider" probably you
just using it like "PE Provider Edge" in this role is much better than the
MX series.
My 2 cents
Ciao,
-
Marco Paesani
Skype: mpaesani
Mobile: +39 348 6019349
Success depends on the right choice !
Email:
On 5/8/21 00:56, Mann, Jason via NANOG wrote:
We are using MX204's as our internet routers and I want to replace our
ASR's with them to be used as an aggregate circuit router. With the
amount of 10G/40G/100G interface and the price point we have been
happy with them. The big issue was
On 5/7/21 23:28, Javier Gutierrez Guerra wrote:
I need to do MPLS (vlls), VXLAN, Multicast, full routing tables,
multiple VRFs, q-in-q, QoS
If it's a typical MPLS-based, BGP-free(ish) core router, you probably
don't need it to do all of those things.
If it's a collapsed core (P/PE),
On 5/7/21 23:14, Adam Thompson wrote:
If you don’t already know that you want a PTX, then you don’t want a
PTX. The product is fine, but niche, and has the same interface
limitations as MX10k.
We are testing the PTX1000 as a core router. Not terribly unhappy so far.
Mark.
On Sat, 8 May 2021 at 00:17, Adam Thompson wrote:
>
>- Skip the MX480 (and up), it’s just too expensive. Consider an
>EX9200 instead, which can do 90% of the same functions. (If you can afford
>an MX480 or MX960, by all means, get one!)
>
> MX240 and MX480 cost 25k list price.
❦ 7 mai 2021 21:14 GMT, Adam Thompson:
> * Skip the MX 2k/10k series – they don’t support SFP+ interfaces!
> (“No 10G WDM for you!”) Also no 1G, you need a separate step-down
> switch for that. I don’t know what SP Juniper thinks they’re targeting
> with these.
The 10k can take 10G SFP+
Yeah,
Routers for the whole Alphabet Soup.
MX204, MX960 are pretty much headache free. Heck even MX240 could
be a good start if you are on a budget.
( Watch for the EoL )
Distribution ( MPLS Alphabet Soup without VXLAN/EVPN )
QFX5100 made us feel like being full time
We are using MX204's as our internet routers and I want to replace our ASR's
with them to be used as an aggregate circuit router. With the amount of
10G/40G/100G interface and the price point we have been happy with them. The
big issue was learning Junos since we are cisco shop
: Friday, May 7, 2021 2:33:23 PM
To: 'Javier Gutierrez Guerra'
Cc: nanog@nanog.org
Subject: RE: Juniper hardware recommendation
You really should discuss this with you local Juniper rep in the first instance
I would suggest.
From: NANOG On Behalf Of Javier
Gutierrez Guerra
Sent: Saturday
You really should discuss this with you local Juniper rep in the first instance
I would suggest.
From: NANOG On Behalf Of Javier
Gutierrez Guerra
Sent: Saturday, 8 May 2021 9:28 am
To: r...@rkhtech.org; nanog@nanog.org
Subject: RE: Juniper hardware recommendation
I need to do MPLS (vlls
7, 2021 4:23 PM
To: Javier Gutierrez Guerra ; nanog@nanog.org
Subject: RE: Juniper hardware recommendation
CAUTION: This email is from an external source. Do not click links or open
attachments unless you recognize the sender and know the content is safe.
Hello!
We wouldn’t be able to g
Hello!
We wouldn’t be able to give any sort of answer without knowing your current and
future requirements. Each model has its own throughput classes, and sometimes a
full on MX router isn’t required.
From: NANOG On Behalf Of Javier
Gutierrez Guerra
Sent: Friday, May 7, 2021 1:55 PM
Hi, Javier!
MX series: Full-featured – sings, dances, walks the cat, etc. But painful
racking (as you noted). Very nice and comprehensive boxes otherwise.
Interfaces are more expensive, but often modular and wider variety.
EX/QFX series: Nice switches, OK L3 routers. Lots of limitations in
42 matches
Mail list logo
