Mailing List Archive: MX10K3 Experiences, ~2 years later

MX10K3 Experiences, ~2 years later

Dec 18, 2019, 9:47 AM

Post #1 of 6 (1496 views)

Hi,

I wanted to follow up on a thread from a couple of years ago about the MX10003

https://lists.gt.net/nsp/juniper/63670?search_string=mx10003

We’ve got a bunch of MX204s that we use for peering and transit over LDP based L3VPN pinned up with IS-IS and BFD. We’re quite happy with these boxes from a cost, density and feature perspective. We’ve had no issues with them at all so far in the few months that they’ve been in the field.

Now, we’re looking for something to use in the same role, but with higher 100G port density. The MX10003 seems like a good fit from a cost perspective verses something like an MX240, but also from a feature and performance perspective because it uses the same hardware as the MX204 in terms of EA Trios and CPU on the MPC, along with the CPU and memory on the RE (except the MX204 has 32GB on the RE as opposed to 64GB on the MX10003).

Wondering how folks are feeling about these boxes a couple of years later.

Thanks!
_______________________________________________
juniper-nsp mailing list juniper-nsp@puck.nether.net
https://puck.nether.net/mailman/listinfo/juniper-nsp

Re: MX10K3 Experiences, ~2 years later [ In reply to ]

mark.tinka at seacom

Dec 19, 2019, 12:05 AM

Post #2 of 6 (1493 views)

Permalink

On 18/Dec/19 19:47, Jason Lixfeld wrote:
> Hi,
>
> I wanted to follow up on a thread from a couple of years ago about the MX10003
>
> https://lists.gt.net/nsp/juniper/63670?search_string=mx10003
>
> We’ve got a bunch of MX204s that we use for peering and transit over LDP based L3VPN pinned up with IS-IS and BFD. We’re quite happy with these boxes from a cost, density and feature perspective. We’ve had no issues with them at all so far in the few months that they’ve been in the field.
>
> Now, we’re looking for something to use in the same role, but with higher 100G port density. The MX10003 seems like a good fit from a cost perspective verses something like an MX240, but also from a feature and performance perspective because it uses the same hardware as the MX204 in terms of EA Trios and CPU on the MPC, along with the CPU and memory on the RE (except the MX204 has 32GB on the RE as opposed to 64GB on the MX10003).
>
> Wondering how folks are feeling about these boxes a couple of years later.

We like the MX10003 as a 100Gbps edge router. It comes with the
additional port density and hardware redundancy that the MX204 doesn't
have, so it does have a role to play.

For customers that want 100Gbps ports, we will dump them on the MX10003.

Mark.
_______________________________________________
juniper-nsp mailing list juniper-nsp@puck.nether.net
https://puck.nether.net/mailman/listinfo/juniper-nsp

Re: MX10K3 Experiences, ~2 years later [ In reply to ]

ekoyle+puck.nether.net at gmail

Dec 20, 2019, 7:20 AM

Post #3 of 6 (1486 views)

Permalink

My biggest complaint about the mx10003 is the absurd port restrictions. If
you use pic-level config, you can run all ports at 40G or 4x10G, but if you
want to use port-level speed config you have to set one of every 4 ports to
100G on pic 1 in each slot to be able to use all of the ports.

Be sure to check your desired config for compatibility:
https://apps.juniper.net/home/port-checker/index.html

--
Eldon

On Thu, Dec 19, 2019, 01:05 Mark Tinka <mark.tinka@seacom.mu> wrote:

>
>
> On 18/Dec/19 19:47, Jason Lixfeld wrote:
> > Hi,
> >
> > I wanted to follow up on a thread from a couple of years ago about the
> MX10003
> >
> > https://lists.gt.net/nsp/juniper/63670?search_string=mx10003
> >
> > We’ve got a bunch of MX204s that we use for peering and transit over LDP
> based L3VPN pinned up with IS-IS and BFD. We’re quite happy with these
> boxes from a cost, density and feature perspective. We’ve had no issues
> with them at all so far in the few months that they’ve been in the field.
> >
> > Now, we’re looking for something to use in the same role, but with
> higher 100G port density. The MX10003 seems like a good fit from a cost
> perspective verses something like an MX240, but also from a feature and
> performance perspective because it uses the same hardware as the MX204 in
> terms of EA Trios and CPU on the MPC, along with the CPU and memory on the
> RE (except the MX204 has 32GB on the RE as opposed to 64GB on the MX10003).
> >
> > Wondering how folks are feeling about these boxes a couple of years
> later.
>
> We like the MX10003 as a 100Gbps edge router. It comes with the
> additional port density and hardware redundancy that the MX204 doesn't
> have, so it does have a role to play.
>
> For customers that want 100Gbps ports, we will dump them on the MX10003.
>
> Mark.
> _______________________________________________
> juniper-nsp mailing list juniper-nsp@puck.nether.net
> https://puck.nether.net/mailman/listinfo/juniper-nsp
>
_______________________________________________
juniper-nsp mailing list juniper-nsp@puck.nether.net
https://puck.nether.net/mailman/listinfo/juniper-nsp

Re: MX10K3 Experiences, ~2 years later [ In reply to ]

saku at ytti

Dec 21, 2019, 12:15 AM

Post #4 of 6 (1485 views)

Permalink

Many absurd things will become reasonable and logical when they are
sufficiently understood.

On Fri, 20 Dec 2019 at 17:22, Eldon Koyle
<ekoyle+puck.nether.net@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> My biggest complaint about the mx10003 is the absurd port restrictions. If
> you use pic-level config, you can run all ports at 40G or 4x10G, but if you
> want to use port-level speed config you have to set one of every 4 ports to
> 100G on pic 1 in each slot to be able to use all of the ports.
>
> Be sure to check your desired config for compatibility:
> https://apps.juniper.net/home/port-checker/index.html
>
> --
> Eldon
>
> On Thu, Dec 19, 2019, 01:05 Mark Tinka <mark.tinka@seacom.mu> wrote:
>
> >
> >
> > On 18/Dec/19 19:47, Jason Lixfeld wrote:
> > > Hi,
> > >
> > > I wanted to follow up on a thread from a couple of years ago about the
> > MX10003
> > >
> > > https://lists.gt.net/nsp/juniper/63670?search_string=mx10003
> > >
> > > We’ve got a bunch of MX204s that we use for peering and transit over LDP
> > based L3VPN pinned up with IS-IS and BFD. We’re quite happy with these
> > boxes from a cost, density and feature perspective. We’ve had no issues
> > with them at all so far in the few months that they’ve been in the field.
> > >
> > > Now, we’re looking for something to use in the same role, but with
> > higher 100G port density. The MX10003 seems like a good fit from a cost
> > perspective verses something like an MX240, but also from a feature and
> > performance perspective because it uses the same hardware as the MX204 in
> > terms of EA Trios and CPU on the MPC, along with the CPU and memory on the
> > RE (except the MX204 has 32GB on the RE as opposed to 64GB on the MX10003).
> > >
> > > Wondering how folks are feeling about these boxes a couple of years
> > later.
> >
> > We like the MX10003 as a 100Gbps edge router. It comes with the
> > additional port density and hardware redundancy that the MX204 doesn't
> > have, so it does have a role to play.
> >
> > For customers that want 100Gbps ports, we will dump them on the MX10003.
> >
> > Mark.
> > _______________________________________________
> > juniper-nsp mailing list juniper-nsp@puck.nether.net
> > https://puck.nether.net/mailman/listinfo/juniper-nsp
> >
> _______________________________________________
> juniper-nsp mailing list juniper-nsp@puck.nether.net
> https://puck.nether.net/mailman/listinfo/juniper-nsp

--
++ytti
_______________________________________________
juniper-nsp mailing list juniper-nsp@puck.nether.net
https://puck.nether.net/mailman/listinfo/juniper-nsp

Re: MX10K3 Experiences, ~2 years later [ In reply to ]

ekoyle+puck.nether.net at gmail

Dec 21, 2019, 5:30 AM

Post #5 of 6 (1481 views)

Permalink

Replace absurd with unexpected, then.

--
Eldon

On Sat, Dec 21, 2019, 02:15 Saku Ytti <saku@ytti.fi> wrote:

> Many absurd things will become reasonable and logical when they are
> sufficiently understood.
>
> On Fri, 20 Dec 2019 at 17:22, Eldon Koyle
> <ekoyle+puck.nether.net@gmail.com> wrote:
> >
> > My biggest complaint about the mx10003 is the absurd port restrictions.
> If
> > you use pic-level config, you can run all ports at 40G or 4x10G, but if
> you
> > want to use port-level speed config you have to set one of every 4 ports
> to
> > 100G on pic 1 in each slot to be able to use all of the ports.
> >
> > Be sure to check your desired config for compatibility:
> > https://apps.juniper.net/home/port-checker/index.html
> >
> > --
> > Eldon
> >
> > On Thu, Dec 19, 2019, 01:05 Mark Tinka <mark.tinka@seacom.mu> wrote:
> >
> > >
> > >
> > > On 18/Dec/19 19:47, Jason Lixfeld wrote:
> > > > Hi,
> > > >
> > > > I wanted to follow up on a thread from a couple of years ago about
> the
> > > MX10003
> > > >
> > > > https://lists.gt.net/nsp/juniper/63670?search_string=mx10003
> > > >
> > > > We’ve got a bunch of MX204s that we use for peering and transit over
> LDP
> > > based L3VPN pinned up with IS-IS and BFD. We’re quite happy with these
> > > boxes from a cost, density and feature perspective. We’ve had no
> issues
> > > with them at all so far in the few months that they’ve been in the
> field.
> > > >
> > > > Now, we’re looking for something to use in the same role, but with
> > > higher 100G port density. The MX10003 seems like a good fit from a
> cost
> > > perspective verses something like an MX240, but also from a feature and
> > > performance perspective because it uses the same hardware as the MX204
> in
> > > terms of EA Trios and CPU on the MPC, along with the CPU and memory on
> the
> > > RE (except the MX204 has 32GB on the RE as opposed to 64GB on the
> MX10003).
> > > >
> > > > Wondering how folks are feeling about these boxes a couple of years
> > > later.
> > >
> > > We like the MX10003 as a 100Gbps edge router. It comes with the
> > > additional port density and hardware redundancy that the MX204 doesn't
> > > have, so it does have a role to play.
> > >
> > > For customers that want 100Gbps ports, we will dump them on the
> MX10003.
> > >
> > > Mark.
> > > _______________________________________________
> > > juniper-nsp mailing list juniper-nsp@puck.nether.net
> > > https://puck.nether.net/mailman/listinfo/juniper-nsp
> > >
> > _______________________________________________
> > juniper-nsp mailing list juniper-nsp@puck.nether.net
> > https://puck.nether.net/mailman/listinfo/juniper-nsp
>
>
>
> --
> ++ytti
>
_______________________________________________
juniper-nsp mailing list juniper-nsp@puck.nether.net
https://puck.nether.net/mailman/listinfo/juniper-nsp

Re: MX10K3 Experiences, ~2 years later [ In reply to ]

mark.tinka at seacom

Dec 21, 2019, 11:21 AM

Post #6 of 6 (1481 views)

Permalink

The pleasure and joy of a new box.

Mark.

On 21/Dec/19 15:30, Eldon Koyle wrote:
> Replace absurd with unexpected, then.
>

_______________________________________________
juniper-nsp mailing list juniper-nsp@puck.nether.net
https://puck.nether.net/mailman/listinfo/juniper-nsp