nanog mailing list archives
Re: MX204 applications, (was about BGP RR design)
From: Mark Tinka <mark.tinka () seacom mu>
Date: Fri, 15 Feb 2019 10:53:27 +0200
On 15/Feb/19 10:40, Saku Ytti wrote:
Is this because we as a community are so anal towards vendors about PPS performance that JNPR marketing forbade them making pizza-box MPC7 using all the capacity in fears of people being angry about not being able to do good PPS on all ports? As far as I understand, it would have been zero cost to have double ports in MX204, if you don't want to use them, there is capex efficient vendor-agnostic, single-spare solution[0] to turn any platform back into full PPS platform. I want my free ports, in metro application you are limited by your east+west capacity and you can never see more PPS, but you want to add more edges.
I'm with you - but from what I can imagine, Juniper did not envisage this box being used in high-density Metro-E applications (which I wouldn't mind doing by planting a bunch of customers on 10Gbps that, in an ideal world, would oversubscribe the 100Gbps uplinks, but in real life, won't). If someone from Juniper is reading this thread, I'd take the feedback and have an "MX204-ME" style box designed with more port density on the platform without having to increase pps or the uplink. Mark.
Current thread:
- BGP topological vs centralized route reflector Mohammad Khalil (Feb 13)
- Re: BGP topological vs centralized route reflector Saku Ytti (Feb 13)
- Re: BGP topological vs centralized route reflector Mark Tinka (Feb 13)
- Re: BGP topological vs centralized route reflector Alain Hebert (Feb 14)
- Re: BGP topological vs centralized route reflector Mark Tinka (Feb 14)
- RE: BGP topological vs centralized route reflector Aaron Gould (Feb 14)
- Re: BGP topological vs centralized route reflector Mark Tinka (Feb 14)
- MX204 applications, (was about BGP RR design) Saku Ytti (Feb 15)
- Re: MX204 applications, (was about BGP RR design) Mark Tinka (Feb 15)
- RE: MX204 applications, (was about BGP RR design) Phil Lavin (Feb 15)
- Re: MX204 applications, (was about BGP RR design) Saku Ytti (Feb 15)
- RE: MX204 applications, (was about BGP RR design) Phil Lavin (Feb 15)
- Re: MX204 applications, (was about BGP RR design) Mark Tinka (Feb 15)
- Re: BGP topological vs centralized route reflector Mark Tinka (Feb 13)
- RE: MX204 applications, (was about BGP RR design) adamv0025 (Feb 19)
- Re: BGP topological vs centralized route reflector Saku Ytti (Feb 13)
- Re: BGP topological vs centralized route reflector Jason Lixfeld (Feb 19)
- RE: BGP topological vs centralized route reflector adamv0025 (Feb 19)