Re: MX204 Virtual Chassis Setup

[Tom Beecher <beecher () beecher cc>]

> 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 to each port group. Doing an MRATE setup to let you access
all 480G would have increased electrical complexity, and dramatically
increased the price point of the box. There are tradeoffs. The more
flexibility you want, the more expensive the box is going to be.

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 Wed, Aug 23, 2023 at 2:11 AM Mark Tinka <mark@tinka.africa> wrote:

> 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 of Trio.
>
> In some cases, we deploy more of these in the same PoP just because we
> need more ports, not because we need more capacity; and a chassis would
> not make sense for the function, yet.
>
> Mark.