> From: Saku Ytti
> Sent: Tuesday, September 3, 2019 1:38 PM
>
> On Tue, 3 Sep 2019 at 15:10, wrote:
>
> > Not true.
> > This is the case only in fixed pipelines.
>
> Also true in say MX Trio and ASR9k EZchip, I can't immediately think of
> platform where ACL or QoS costs pps. ASR9k is TCAM
On Tue, 3 Sep 2019 at 15:10, wrote:
> Not true.
> This is the case only in fixed pipelines.
Also true in say MX Trio and ASR9k EZchip, I can't immediately think
of platform where ACL or QoS costs pps. ASR9k is TCAM for ACL so O(1)
and MX Trio is just fast enough to not affect pps performance.
On Mon, 2 Sep 2019, Hank Nussbacher wrote:
What about handling LAG on 1Gb/sec links? That is a major showstopper if
indeed it is missing:
It works, but only about as well as anything else to do with 1G interfaces
works on the MX204, and only then when you're running at least 18.1R3...
> From: Saku Ytti
> Sent: Tuesday, September 3, 2019 9:55 AM
>
> On Tue, 3 Sep 2019 at 10:27, Łukasz Bromirski wrote:
>
> > 64B traffic simply doesn’t happen apart from DDoS scenarios, so why
> > bother at all? Customers anyway want to use dedicated
>
>
> And like you said, QoS and filters
On Tue, 3 Sep 2019 at 10:27, Łukasz Bromirski wrote:
> 64B traffic simply doesn’t happen apart from DDoS scenarios, so
> why bother at all? Customers anyway want to use dedicated
ACK. And as such, you're not going to get DDoS on all ports at the
same time. So you just need to have enough ports
Adam,
> On 2 Sep 2019, at 19:42, adamv0...@netconsultings.com wrote:
>
> You nailed it,
> Actually very few line-cards or fabric-less boxes with (run to completion
> vendor chips) out there do line-rate at 64B packets nowadays.
> -with the advent of 100G the "line-rate at 64B" is pretty much
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 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
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 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 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
On 8/10/19 2:29 AM, Saku Ytti wrote:
You get better price from newegg for CSCO gear.
You'll note I said "start". As in, laugh at any vendor who doesn't
immediately give you at least that much off. As Aaron mentioned,
they'll go quite a ways beyond that if you let them know that you are
On 2019-08-10 02:29, Saku Ytti wrote:
> On Sat, 10 Aug 2019 at 00:22, Brandon Martin wrote:
>
>> Yes, yes they will. I've seen some distributor pricing and, while not
>> officially under NDA, I will not mention it directly. Suffice to say
>> you should demand at least 40-50% off list from
I have to agree with Eric here. 1G should be relegated elsewhere. If you ask
for something that does all these speeds you will soon ask for 10m and that’s a
wide range.
I would go with a 72q and if something needs 1G then add a switch or similar.
Something like that Arista 7050 while EOL will
On Sat, 10 Aug 2019 at 00:22, Brandon Martin wrote:
> Yes, yes they will. I've seen some distributor pricing and, while not
> officially under NDA, I will not mention it directly. Suffice to say
> you should demand at least 40-50% off list from your vendor to start with.
You get better price
On 8/9/2019 4:19 PM, Brandon Martin wrote:
On 8/9/19 1:23 PM, Aaron wrote:
We've gotten 5.7M in there with compression.
Out of curiosity, what are you doing that has 5.7M routes in a single
routing area? That's a lot of edge routes, tons of VRFs, or something.
They were generated just
On 8/9/19 1:23 PM, Aaron wrote:
We've gotten 5.7M in there with compression.
Out of curiosity, what are you doing that has 5.7M routes in a single
routing area? That's a lot of edge routes, tons of VRFs, or something.
Push them and they will get very aggressive on price. VERY aggressive.
I'll inject two of my own questions here...
Assuming one can find a used mx204, what is the official juniper licensing
policy?
It looks like I'm going to be replacing our core cisco in the not
too distant future due to running out of fib entries, and am looking at
options. Am I reading the
I would recommend the SLX9640. 12x 100G and 24x 1G/10G ports. 4 million
routes in hardware without compression. We've gotten 5.7M in there with
compression. Price point is super good. Push them and they will get
very aggressive on price. VERY aggressive.
Aaron
On 8/7/2019 10:33 PM,
One thought could be any of the virtual ones, vmx, nokia vsr, etc on lannerinc
hardware.
Cheep scalable and has all the interface options
Sent from my iPhone
> On 9 Aug 2019, at 2:50 am, Tom Hill wrote:
>
>> On 08/08/2019 04:02, Mehmet Akcin wrote:
>>
>> I am looking for some suggestions
On Fri, Aug 9, 2019, at 08:13, Saku Ytti wrote:
> On Fri, 9 Aug 2019 at 09:09, Radu-Adrian Feurdean
> wrote:
>
> > On Thu, Aug 8, 2019, at 16:51, Tom Hill wrote:
> > > No-one has mentioned it yet, so for completeness big C have the ASR 9901
> >
> > Weren't we talking about "decently priced" ?
>
On Fri, 9 Aug 2019 at 09:09, Radu-Adrian Feurdean
wrote:
> On Thu, Aug 8, 2019, at 16:51, Tom Hill wrote:
> > No-one has mentioned it yet, so for completeness big C have the ASR 9901
>
> Weren't we talking about "decently priced" ?
ASR9901 and MX204 being wildly differently priced is market
On Thu, Aug 8, 2019, at 16:51, Tom Hill wrote:
> No-one has mentioned it yet, so for completeness big C have the ASR 9901
Weren't we talking about "decently priced" ?
> (not 9001) with traditional router bits in it.
9001, while approaching EoL, can be a good solution if your needs are limited :
VMX (and VSR) throughput capacity pricing is excessive once you get over about
20G from what I have seen.
From: NANOG On Behalf Of Baldur Norddahl
Sent: Friday, 9 August 2019 9:16 AM
To: nanog@nanog.org
Subject: Re: Mx204 alternative
Hello
How about Juniper vMX? 8x 10G is no problem
Hello
How about Juniper vMX? 8x 10G is no problem in a 2U server. Two Intel X710
NICs with 4 interfaces on each.
I found this guide:
https://gbe0.com/networking/juniper/vmx/ubuntu-14-04-kvm-host-setup-for-juniper-vmx
Regards
Baldur
On Thu, Aug 8, 2019 at 5:04 AM Mehmet Akcin wrote:
>
hey,
This > means, as you say if you want physical 10G or lower ports then a>
7210-sas-sx64 would be needed which is less than ideal.
Or you could talk to your account team, there are some new MDAs coming
for IOM-5 and SR-1 that might suit the 10G/1G requirements without
breakout or
-sx64 would be needed which is less than ideal.
-Original Message-
From: NANOG On Behalf Of Radu-Adrian Feurdean
Sent: Thursday, 8 August 2019 10:50 PM
To: nanog@nanog.org
Subject: Re: Mx204 alternative
Hi,
SR1 (without s) is 2u high, bit it doesn't have 1G ports. It doesn't even
have
On 08/08/2019 04:02, Mehmet Akcin wrote:
>
> I am looking for some suggestions on alternatives to mx204.
>
> Any recommendations on something more affordable which can handle full
> routing tables from two providers?
>
> Prefer Juniper but happy to look alternatives.
> Min 6-8 10G ports are
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 needs a 1GbE inteface, attach it to that switch, give
Hi,
SR1 (without s) is 2u high, bit it doesn't have 1G ports. It doesn't even have
"native" 10G ports. Only 40/100G, with 4x10G optics for 10G. For 1G you would
need a 7210 in sattelite mode, which is one extra U + $$$.
Otherwise very nice box...
On Thu, Aug 8, 2019, at 05:30, Mehmet Akcin
~$45k is the US list price... typical discount applies :-)
thanks,
-Randy
- On Aug 8, 2019, at 2:33 AM, 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
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 Linux box with 4x10G NIC and some
random switch as
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. MX204 is really a nice box. I only wish they had a
If it's not for an US company, then a Huawei NE-20 could be in order. The
entry model fits 2U.
Rubens
On Thu, Aug 8, 2019 at 12:04 AM Mehmet Akcin wrote:
> Greetings,
>
> I am looking for some suggestions on alternatives to mx204.
>
> Any recommendations on something more affordable which
Thank you! Very useful
Certainly i have concerns about the software as well
On Wed, Aug 7, 2019 at 8:35 PM Brandon Martin
wrote:
> On 8/7/19 11:02 PM, Mehmet Akcin wrote:
> > I am looking for some suggestions on alternatives to mx204.
> >
> > Any recommendations on something more affordable
On 8/7/19 11:02 PM, Mehmet Akcin wrote:
I am looking for some suggestions on alternatives to mx204.
Any recommendations on something more affordable which can handle full
routing tables from two providers?
Prefer Juniper but happy to look alternatives.
Min 6-8 10G ports are required
1G
It’s a bit more expensive and higher capability (1.2tb vs 400G) than the MX204.
But the form factor and capability is very impressive for a little box.
From: Mehmet Akcin
Sent: Thursday, 8 August 2019 3:30 PM
To: Tony Wicks
Cc: nanog
Subject: Re: Mx204 alternative
Thank you! Something
Thank you! Something within 2U (max) form factor :)
On Wed, Aug 7, 2019 at 8:23 PM Tony Wicks wrote:
> Nokia 7750 sr-1.
>
>
>
>
>
> *From:* NANOG *On Behalf Of *Mehmet Akcin
> *Sent:* Thursday, 8 August 2019 3:03 PM
> *To:* nanog
> *Subject:* Mx204 alternative
>
>
>
> Greetings,
>
>
>
> I am
Nokia 7750 sr-1.
From: NANOG On Behalf Of Mehmet Akcin
Sent: Thursday, 8 August 2019 3:03 PM
To: nanog
Subject: Mx204 alternative
Greetings,
I am looking for some suggestions on alternatives to mx204.
Any recommendations on something more affordable which can handle full
76 matches
Mail list logo
