Mailing List Archive

I've had an ACX5448 in my lab on loaner for over a year. I need to refresh
myself on how well it performed. I have the little-brother ACX5048,
probably 50 of them all over my network doing quite well. Pretty sure those
are not Trio based.

Never heard of the ACX710, but see it in slide 22 here ...
https://senetsy.ru/upload/juniper-summit-2019/5G-ready_Transport_Networks_Ev
genii_Bugakov_Juniper.pdf
ACX710 and ACX753. I'm curious about interfaces and modules and
capabilities of both of them.

-Aaron


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

The 5448 and the 5048 are quite different. I have several 5048 in my plant
and when we questioned Juniper about a replacement with 100G interfaces
their engineers compared the config template from our 5048s and said the
5448 wasn't capable of doing some of the RSVP and RPM stuff we were doing
on the 5048. This was about 6 months ago.

Luis

On Tue, Jan 21, 2020 at 4:45 PM Aaron Gould <aaron1@gvtc.com> wrote:

> I've had an ACX5448 in my lab on loaner for over a year. I need to refresh
> myself on how well it performed. I have the little-brother ACX5048,
> probably 50 of them all over my network doing quite well. Pretty sure
> those
> are not Trio based.
>
> Never heard of the ACX710, but see it in slide 22 here ...
>
> https://senetsy.ru/upload/juniper-summit-2019/5G-ready_Transport_Networks_Ev
> genii_Bugakov_Juniper.pdf
> <https://senetsy.ru/upload/juniper-summit-2019/5G-ready_Transport_Networks_Evgenii_Bugakov_Juniper.pdf>
> ACX710 and ACX753. I'm curious about interfaces and modules and
> capabilities of both of them.
>
> -Aaron
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> 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

Hello

We did some initial lab teste using 5448 for a client and we have checked with JUNIPER.

The major problems we found for our client environment:

- No support for FAT (no roadmap);
- No support for Entropy Label (no roadmap);
- No support for Output Policer or HQOS for VPLS / L2Circuit (no roadmap);
- ACX does not support load balance parsing the payload on lag interface (no roadmap);
- Some problems with arp flooding for the main CPU (initial JUNOS releases but I think they have solve it);
- IRB on VPLS is not supported;
- Not possible to monitor the real-time traffic on sub-interfaces using CLI (only with SNMP)

It is good to check with them to see if those functions would work ate some new releases (some day ...).

Att,

Giuliano

-----Original Message-----
From: juniper-nsp <juniper-nsp-bounces@puck.nether.net> On Behalf Of Luis Balbinot
Sent: terça-feira, 21 de janeiro de 2020 16:59
To: Aaron Gould <aaron1@gvtc.com>
Cc: jnsp list <juniper-nsp@puck.nether.net>
Subject: Re: [j-nsp] ACX5448 & ACX710

The 5448 and the 5048 are quite different. I have several 5048 in my plant and when we questioned Juniper about a replacement with 100G interfaces their engineers compared the config template from our 5048s and said the
5448 wasn't capable of doing some of the RSVP and RPM stuff we were doing on the 5048. This was about 6 months ago.

Luis

On Tue, Jan 21, 2020 at 4:45 PM Aaron Gould <aaron1@gvtc.com> wrote:

> I've had an ACX5448 in my lab on loaner for over a year. I need to
> refresh myself on how well it performed. I have the little-brother
> ACX5048, probably 50 of them all over my network doing quite well.
> Pretty sure those are not Trio based.
>
> Never heard of the ACX710, but see it in slide 22 here ...
>
> https://nam02.safelinks.protection.outlook.com/?url=https%3A%2F%2Fsene
> tsy.ru%2Fupload%2Fjuniper-summit-2019%2F5G-ready_Transport_Networks_Ev
> &amp;data=02%7C01%7Cgiuliano%40wztech.com.br%7Cf47f0378dce54349a9d208d
> 79eac77dd%7C584787b077bd4312bf8815412b8ae504%7C1%7C1%7C637152335925921
> 914&amp;sdata=O6x7rQJ2OdQeVpdjsWEeWW%2BbUfvLWShaDrb0itRc%2FRk%3D&amp;r
> eserved=0
> genii_Bugakov_Juniper.pdf
> <https://nam02.safelinks.protection.outlook.com/?url=https%3A%2F%2Fsen
> etsy.ru%2Fupload%2Fjuniper-summit-2019%2F5G-ready_Transport_Networks_E
> vgenii_Bugakov_Juniper.pdf&amp;data=02%7C01%7Cgiuliano%40wztech.com.br
> %7Cf47f0378dce54349a9d208d79eac77dd%7C584787b077bd4312bf8815412b8ae504
> %7C1%7C1%7C637152335925921914&amp;sdata=kaF077Ymm7a4T4QDuI6Y2R8KRZnyuc
> s0lDGH838NJ%2F0%3D&amp;reserved=0>
> ACX710 and ACX753. I'm curious about interfaces and modules and
> capabilities of both of them.
>
> -Aaron
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> juniper-nsp mailing list juniper-nsp@puck.nether.net
> https://nam02.safelinks.protection.outlook.com/?url=https%3A%2F%2Fpuck
> .nether.net%2Fmailman%2Flistinfo%2Fjuniper-nsp&amp;data=02%7C01%7Cgiul
> iano%40wztech.com.br%7Cf47f0378dce54349a9d208d79eac77dd%7C584787b077bd
> 4312bf8815412b8ae504%7C1%7C1%7C637152335925921914&amp;sdata=bQ7iLaxJOi
> Gj730LNO2u4gH64TpYWJMYC5exorh69bI%3D&amp;reserved=0
>
_______________________________________________
juniper-nsp mailing list juniper-nsp@puck.nether.net
https://nam02.safelinks.protection.outlook.com/?url=https%3A%2F%2Fpuck.nether.net%2Fmailman%2Flistinfo%2Fjuniper-nsp&amp;data=02%7C01%7Cgiuliano%40wztech.com.br%7Cf47f0378dce54349a9d208d79eac77dd%7C584787b077bd4312bf8815412b8ae504%7C1%7C1%7C637152335925921914&amp;sdata=bQ7iLaxJOiGj730LNO2u4gH64TpYWJMYC5exorh69bI%3D&amp;reserved=0

WZTECH is registered trademark of WZTECH NETWORKS.
Copyright © 2018 WZTECH NETWORKS. All Rights Reserved.

IMPORTANTE:
As informações deste e-mail e o conteúdo dos eventuais documentos anexos são confidenciais e para conhecimento exclusivo do destinatário. Se o leitor desta mensagem não for o seu destinatário, fica desde já notificado de que não poderá divulgar, distribuir ou, sob qualquer forma, dar conhecimento a terceiros das informações e do conteúdo dos documentos anexos. Neste caso, favor comunicar imediatamente o remetente, respondendo este e-mail ou telefonando ao mesmo, e em seguida apague-o.

CONFIDENTIALITY NOTICE:
The information transmitted in this email message and any attachments are solely for the intended recipient and may contain confidential or privileged information. If you are not the intended recipient, any review, transmission, dissemination or other use of this information is prohibited. If you have received this communication in error, please notify the sender immediately and delete the material from any computer, including any copies.

WZTECH is registered trademark of WZTECH NETWORKS.
Copyright © 2018 WZTECH NETWORKS. All Rights Reserved.

IMPORTANTE:
As informações deste e-mail e o conteúdo dos eventuais documentos anexos são confidenciais e para conhecimento exclusivo do destinatário. Se o leitor desta mensagem não for o seu destinatário, fica desde já notificado de que não poderá divulgar, distribuir ou, sob qualquer forma, dar conhecimento a terceiros das informações e do conteúdo dos documentos anexos. Neste caso, favor comunicar imediatamente o remetente, respondendo este e-mail ou telefonando ao mesmo, e em seguida apague-o.

CONFIDENTIALITY NOTICE:
The information transmitted in this email message and any attachments are solely for the intended recipient and may contain confidential or privileged information. If you are not the intended recipient, any review, transmission, dissemination or other use of this information is prohibited. If you have received this communication in error, please notify the sender immediately and delete the material from any computer, including any copies.
_______________________________________________
juniper-nsp mailing list juniper-nsp@puck.nether.net
https://puck.nether.net/mailman/listinfo/juniper-nsp

On Tue, 21 Jan 2020 at 22:24, Giuliano C. Medalha
<giuliano@wztech.com.br> wrote:

> - No support for FAT (no roadmap);
> - No support for Entropy Label (no roadmap);
> - No support for Output Policer or HQOS for VPLS / L2Circuit (no roadmap);
> - ACX does not support load balance parsing the payload on lag interface (no roadmap);
> - Some problems with arp flooding for the main CPU (initial JUNOS releases but I think they have solve it);
> - IRB on VPLS is not supported;
> - Not possible to monitor the real-time traffic on sub-interfaces using CLI (only with SNMP)

When were you communicated these? They differ significantly from what
was communicated to me.

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

Hello

Good morning

We did the tests last year in our lab

The roadmap position for some features must be changed from there.

It is a good think ... to check again with juniper sales rep ... to have a better view about these features and new roadmaps and new dates

We are going to ask for an update again because all these features are so important to us.

Thanks



Get Outlook for iOS<https://aka.ms/o0ukef>
________________________________
From: Saku Ytti <saku@ytti.fi>
Sent: Wednesday, January 22, 2020 3:26:38 AM
To: Giuliano C. Medalha <giuliano@wztech.com.br>
Cc: jnsp list <juniper-nsp@puck.nether.net>
Subject: Re: [j-nsp] ACX5448 & ACX710

On Tue, 21 Jan 2020 at 22:24, Giuliano C. Medalha
<giuliano@wztech.com.br> wrote:

> - No support for FAT (no roadmap);
> - No support for Entropy Label (no roadmap);
> - No support for Output Policer or HQOS for VPLS / L2Circuit (no roadmap);
> - ACX does not support load balance parsing the payload on lag interface (no roadmap);
> - Some problems with arp flooding for the main CPU (initial JUNOS releases but I think they have solve it);
> - IRB on VPLS is not supported;
> - Not possible to monitor the real-time traffic on sub-interfaces using CLI (only with SNMP)

When were you communicated these? They differ significantly from what
was communicated to me.

--
++ytti

WZTECH is registered trademark of WZTECH NETWORKS.
Copyright ? 2018 WZTECH NETWORKS. All Rights Reserved.

IMPORTANTE:
As informa??es deste e-mail e o conte?do dos eventuais documentos anexos s?o confidenciais e para conhecimento exclusivo do destinat?rio. Se o leitor desta mensagem n?o for o seu destinat?rio, fica desde j? notificado de que n?o poder? divulgar, distribuir ou, sob qualquer forma, dar conhecimento a terceiros das informa??es e do conte?do dos documentos anexos. Neste caso, favor comunicar imediatamente o remetente, respondendo este e-mail ou telefonando ao mesmo, e em seguida apague-o.

CONFIDENTIALITY NOTICE:
The information transmitted in this email message and any attachments are solely for the intended recipient and may contain confidential or privileged information. If you are not the intended recipient, any review, transmission, dissemination or other use of this information is prohibited. If you have received this communication in error, please notify the sender immediately and delete the material from any computer, including any copies.

WZTECH is registered trademark of WZTECH NETWORKS.
Copyright ? 2018 WZTECH NETWORKS. All Rights Reserved.

IMPORTANTE:
As informa??es deste e-mail e o conte?do dos eventuais documentos anexos s?o confidenciais e para conhecimento exclusivo do destinat?rio. Se o leitor desta mensagem n?o for o seu destinat?rio, fica desde j? notificado de que n?o poder? divulgar, distribuir ou, sob qualquer forma, dar conhecimento a terceiros das informa??es e do conte?do dos documentos anexos. Neste caso, favor comunicar imediatamente o remetente, respondendo este e-mail ou telefonando ao mesmo, e em seguida apague-o.

CONFIDENTIALITY NOTICE:
The information transmitted in this email message and any attachments are solely for the intended recipient and may contain confidential or privileged information. If you are not the intended recipient, any review, transmission, dissemination or other use of this information is prohibited. If you have received this communication in error, please notify the sender immediately and delete the material from any computer, including any copies.
_______________________________________________
juniper-nsp mailing list juniper-nsp@puck.nether.net
https://puck.nether.net/mailman/listinfo/juniper-nsp

On 21/Jan/20 21:44, Aaron Gould wrote:
> I've had an ACX5448 in my lab on loaner for over a year. I need to refresh
> myself on how well it performed. I have the little-brother ACX5048,
> probably 50 of them all over my network doing quite well. Pretty sure those
> are not Trio based.

If memory serves, the ACX5048 is based on the Trident II. So it should
be markedly different from the ACX5448, which is Jericho 2-based.


> Never heard of the ACX710, but see it in slide 22 here ...
> https://senetsy.ru/upload/juniper-summit-2019/5G-ready_Transport_Networks_Ev
> genii_Bugakov_Juniper.pdf
> ACX710 and ACX753. I'm curious about interfaces and modules and
> capabilities of both of them.

Let me see if I can remember this - the ACX710 should be 24x 1/10Gbps
ports + 2x 100Gbps uplinks (could be double that).

The ACX753 is chassis-based, and built for hardened requirements in the
Metro and RAN.

Both are shipping middle of 2020.

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

On 21/Jan/20 21:58, Luis Balbinot wrote:

> The 5448 and the 5048 are quite different. I have several 5048 in my
> plant and when we questioned Juniper about a replacement with 100G
> interfaces their engineers compared the config template from our 5048s
> and said the 5448 wasn't capable of doing some of the RSVP and RPM
> stuff we were doing on the 5048. This was about 6 months ago.

We are not an RSVP house, but these are things I'd like to know.

Thanks for the feedback.

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

On 22/Jan/20 08:26, Saku Ytti wrote:

>
> When were you communicated these? They differ significantly from what
> was communicated to me.

Saku, would you mind sharing what issues you know about these (and others)?

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

On 22/Jan/20 10:03, Giuliano C. Medalha wrote:

> Hello
>
> Good morning
>
> We did the tests last year in our lab
>
> The roadmap position for some features must be changed from there.
>
> It is a good think ... to check again with juniper sales rep ... to have a better view about these features and new roadmaps and new dates
>
> We are going to ask for an update again because all these features are so important to us.

Would be most grateful if you can let us know when you hear back from
Juniper on these, Giuliano. Thanks.

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

On Wed, 22 Jan 2020 at 10:06, Mark Tinka <mark.tinka@seacom.mu> wrote:

> > When were you communicated these? They differ significantly from what
> > was communicated to me.
>
> Saku, would you mind sharing what issues you know about these (and others)?

I've not tested nor paid much attention, but the information I have is
that FAT is roadmapped, unsure of the other stuff as much of it is not
relevant to me.

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

Thanks a lot

Forgot to put the following on the list:

TE / TE++ and auto-bandwidth

We will ask them the roadmap for these features too.



Get Outlook for iOS<https://aka.ms/o0ukef>
________________________________
From: juniper-nsp <juniper-nsp-bounces@puck.nether.net> on behalf of Saku Ytti <saku@ytti.fi>
Sent: Wednesday, January 22, 2020 5:49:50 AM
To: Mark Tinka <mark.tinka@seacom.mu>
Cc: Juniper List <juniper-nsp@puck.nether.net>
Subject: Re: [j-nsp] ACX5448 & ACX710

On Wed, 22 Jan 2020 at 10:06, Mark Tinka <mark.tinka@seacom.mu> wrote:

> > When were you communicated these? They differ significantly from what
> > was communicated to me.
>
> Saku, would you mind sharing what issues you know about these (and others)?

I've not tested nor paid much attention, but the information I have is
that FAT is roadmapped, unsure of the other stuff as much of it is not
relevant to me.

--
++ytti
_______________________________________________
juniper-nsp mailing list juniper-nsp@puck.nether.net
https://nam02.safelinks.protection.outlook.com/?url=https%3A%2F%2Fpuck.nether.net%2Fmailman%2Flistinfo%2Fjuniper-nsp&amp;data=02%7C01%7Cgiuliano%40wztech.com.br%7C4e373f01744e438c535208d79f1835b6%7C584787b077bd4312bf8815412b8ae504%7C1%7C0%7C637152798679559514&amp;sdata=KyXYR5LrmaEQJ30ILxsvV2wftgd3dG2%2F1I%2Fo1qRZOvc%3D&amp;reserved=0

WZTECH is registered trademark of WZTECH NETWORKS.
Copyright ? 2018 WZTECH NETWORKS. All Rights Reserved.

IMPORTANTE:
As informa??es deste e-mail e o conte?do dos eventuais documentos anexos s?o confidenciais e para conhecimento exclusivo do destinat?rio. Se o leitor desta mensagem n?o for o seu destinat?rio, fica desde j? notificado de que n?o poder? divulgar, distribuir ou, sob qualquer forma, dar conhecimento a terceiros das informa??es e do conte?do dos documentos anexos. Neste caso, favor comunicar imediatamente o remetente, respondendo este e-mail ou telefonando ao mesmo, e em seguida apague-o.

CONFIDENTIALITY NOTICE:
The information transmitted in this email message and any attachments are solely for the intended recipient and may contain confidential or privileged information. If you are not the intended recipient, any review, transmission, dissemination or other use of this information is prohibited. If you have received this communication in error, please notify the sender immediately and delete the material from any computer, including any copies.

WZTECH is registered trademark of WZTECH NETWORKS.
Copyright ? 2018 WZTECH NETWORKS. All Rights Reserved.

IMPORTANTE:
As informa??es deste e-mail e o conte?do dos eventuais documentos anexos s?o confidenciais e para conhecimento exclusivo do destinat?rio. Se o leitor desta mensagem n?o for o seu destinat?rio, fica desde j? notificado de que n?o poder? divulgar, distribuir ou, sob qualquer forma, dar conhecimento a terceiros das informa??es e do conte?do dos documentos anexos. Neste caso, favor comunicar imediatamente o remetente, respondendo este e-mail ou telefonando ao mesmo, e em seguida apague-o.

CONFIDENTIALITY NOTICE:
The information transmitted in this email message and any attachments are solely for the intended recipient and may contain confidential or privileged information. If you are not the intended recipient, any review, transmission, dissemination or other use of this information is prohibited. If you have received this communication in error, please notify the sender immediately and delete the material from any computer, including any copies.
_______________________________________________
juniper-nsp mailing list juniper-nsp@puck.nether.net
https://puck.nether.net/mailman/listinfo/juniper-nsp

On Wed, 22 Jan 2020, Giuliano C. Medalha wrote:

> TE / TE++ and auto-bandwidth

Still broken? Been hearing excuses about why these don't work on merchant
silicon boxes since the EX3200...

-Rob


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

On Wed, 22 Jan 2020 at 11:48, Rob Foehl <rwf@loonybin.net> wrote:

> TE / TE++ and auto-bandwidth
>
> Still broken? Been hearing excuses about why these don't work on merchant
> silicon boxes since the EX3200...

Excuses seems strong word, it implies you know what merchant silicon
EX3200 has and it implies you know it can push two and swap, which it
can't.

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

> Giuliano C. Medalha
> Sent: Tuesday, January 21, 2020 8:24 PM
>
> Hello
>
> We did some initial lab teste using 5448 for a client and we have checked with
> JUNIPER.
>
> The major problems we found for our client environment:
>
> - No support for FAT (no roadmap);
> - No support for Entropy Label (no roadmap);
> - No support for Output Policer or HQOS for VPLS / L2Circuit (no roadmap);
> - ACX does not support load balance parsing the payload on lag interface (no
> roadmap);
> - Some problems with arp flooding for the main CPU (initial JUNOS releases
> but I think they have solve it);
> - IRB on VPLS is not supported;
> - Not possible to monitor the real-time traffic on sub-interfaces using CLI
> (only with SNMP)
>
> It is good to check with them to see if those functions would work ate some
> new releases (some day ...).
>
And no " TE / TE++ and auto-bandwidth"?

-seems like ACX5448 is targeted as a CPE box or a L2 switch,

...unsubscribe....

adam


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

On Wed, 22 Jan 2020 at 16:01, <adamv0025@netconsultings.com> wrote:

> And no " TE / TE++ and auto-bandwidth"?
>
> -seems like ACX5448 is targeted as a CPE box or a L2 switch,

It's metro box but appetite for more. There is no reason why it
wouldn't do TE/autoBW, if you wave bags of money at JNPR, you'll get
it.

> ...unsubscribe....

Remember how it took >5years to get EoMPLS on ASR1k? 19.4 was RLS2 for
ACX5448. What is right way to release boxes

- release with the features the customer who buys them wanted
- release after you have feature parity


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

CPE with its datasheet not even mentioning IPSec/DTLS hardware support ...
LOL what year do we have ?

On Wed, Jan 22, 2020 at 3:01 PM <adamv0025@netconsultings.com> wrote:

> > Giuliano C. Medalha
> > Sent: Tuesday, January 21, 2020 8:24 PM
> >
> > Hello
> >
> > We did some initial lab teste using 5448 for a client and we have
> checked with
> > JUNIPER.
> >
> > The major problems we found for our client environment:
> >
> > - No support for FAT (no roadmap);
> > - No support for Entropy Label (no roadmap);
> > - No support for Output Policer or HQOS for VPLS / L2Circuit (no
> roadmap);
> > - ACX does not support load balance parsing the payload on lag interface
> (no
> > roadmap);
> > - Some problems with arp flooding for the main CPU (initial JUNOS
> releases
> > but I think they have solve it);
> > - IRB on VPLS is not supported;
> > - Not possible to monitor the real-time traffic on sub-interfaces using
> CLI
> > (only with SNMP)
> >
> > It is good to check with them to see if those functions would work ate
> some
> > new releases (some day ...).
> >
> And no " TE / TE++ and auto-bandwidth"?
>
> -seems like ACX5448 is targeted as a CPE box or a L2 switch,
>
> ...unsubscribe....
>
> adam
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> 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

On Wed, 22 Jan 2020 at 16:09, Robert Raszuk <robert@raszuk.net> wrote:

> CPE with its datasheet not even mentioning IPSec/DTLS hardware support ...
> LOL what year do we have ?

It is not CPE, it's metrobox. Jericho doesn't do IPsec in year 2020.

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

On 22/Jan/20 16:01, adamv0025@netconsultings.com wrote:

> And no " TE / TE++ and auto-bandwidth"?
>
> -seems like ACX5448 is targeted as a CPE box or a L2 switch,

According to Juniper, it's targeted as an IP/MPLS router for the Metro
and similar applications.

It is meant to compete with Cisco's ASR920 and NCS540 boxes, as Juniper
have no plans to develop a lite version of the MX204.

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

On 1/22/20, 10:08 AM, "juniper-nsp on behalf of Mark Tinka" <juniper-nsp-bounces@puck.nether.net on behalf of mark.tinka@seacom.mu> wrote:
According to Juniper, it's targeted as an IP/MPLS router for the Metro
and similar applications.

It is meant to compete with Cisco's ASR920 and NCS540 boxes, as Juniper
have no plans to develop a lite version of the MX204.

Which is something many of us smaller providers have been begging them for YEARS to make. Hopefully it doesn't have restrictions on port configurations like the MX204 or weird filtering limitations like the original ACX boxes. The ASR920 is popular for a reason - they are rock-solid, offered decent port configurations, sensible and reasonably priced licensing, small form-factor and features decent enough for an access MPLS device.

Trying to get more info from my SE, but likely will not be able to share it due to NDA, as it's not yet a released product.

-evt

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

On 22/Jan/20 17:17, Eric Van Tol wrote:

>
> Which is something many of us smaller providers have been begging them for YEARS to make. Hopefully it doesn't have restrictions on port configurations like the MX204 or weird filtering limitations like the original ACX boxes. The ASR920 is popular for a reason - they are rock-solid, offered decent port configurations, sensible and reasonably priced licensing, small form-factor and features decent enough for an access MPLS device.

And, custom silicon that does, pretty much, what you're used to seeing
on IOS XE boxes.

Juniper, I've realized, are really not interested in the Metro-E space.
I know it's great to think merchant silicon is the answer to get into
that space, but it doesn't look to me like they will be bother the
ASR920 anytime soon.

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

Mark and gents.

Juniper really doesn't care about Metro services, since ACX5048, "The Promissed" equipment that was ready to solve our problems regarding port density and functions, but... ACX5048 doesn't work as expected as Giuliano said(Giuliano is my SE), We brought some ACX5048... in less than a month of operation, we remove those box from network, they became a layer2 switch only. So Juniper release the new ACX, but the problems still the same.

From my perspective, they don't have time to develop a good software and they just release anything for us thinking that someday, they will correct the software of the new hardwar, and we will be happy, but they just forget that we provide services and we have SLA. I have my personal cents about this subject...

MX, maybe, is the most stable hardware/software that they had in this moment. But there is no good density of ports, or we had to choose what type of ports we had to work on with, I can't accept this, a MPC7E-MRATE working with only 4 100Gb ports... (aahhh this is because de backplane bla bla bla bla....) hardware release with bad development to run against market... to not lose the market.

Other problem that I have here, is with QFX5100 platform, using a functionality(version 14.1X53-D35.3), that they remove at the newest release software, and, they(Juniper) don't had solution for that and, they really don't care....

Now I have a big problem in large scale, since I have hundreds of QFX5100, can't upgrade due that, and JTAC don't support that old release anymore.

And, I don't want to talk about QFX5120.... deception...


This is my cent, and my feelings about.


Att
Alexandre


?Em 22/01/2020 12:41, "juniper-nsp em nome de Mark Tinka" <juniper-nsp-bounces@puck.nether.net em nome de mark.tinka@seacom.mu> escreveu:



On 22/Jan/20 17:17, Eric Van Tol wrote:

>
> Which is something many of us smaller providers have been begging them for YEARS to make. Hopefully it doesn't have restrictions on port configurations like the MX204 or weird filtering limitations like the original ACX boxes. The ASR920 is popular for a reason - they are rock-solid, offered decent port configurations, sensible and reasonably priced licensing, small form-factor and features decent enough for an access MPLS device.

And, custom silicon that does, pretty much, what you're used to seeing
on IOS XE boxes.

Juniper, I've realized, are really not interested in the Metro-E space.
I know it's great to think merchant silicon is the answer to get into
that space, but it doesn't look to me like they will be bother the
ASR920 anytime soon.

Mark.
_______________________________________________
juniper-nsp mailing list juniper-nsp@puck.nether.net
https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=https-3A__puck.nether.net_mailman_listinfo_juniper-2Dnsp&d=DwICAg&c=euGZstcaTDllvimEN8b7jXrwqOf-v5A_CdpgnVfiiMM&r=d3qAF5t8mugacLDeGpoAguKDWyMVANad_HfrWBCDH1s&m=TU6hC3CmliVPupj04_YNYHTF5VVsspISdyOjUEnr2TM&s=r-fSdwLUay6e6rXEc7nibhLO1FNxOw1U62KPIFpFeF4&e=


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

On Wed, 22 Jan 2020, Saku Ytti wrote:

> On Wed, 22 Jan 2020 at 11:48, Rob Foehl <rwf@loonybin.net> wrote:
>
>>> TE / TE++ and auto-bandwidth
>>
>> Still broken? Been hearing excuses about why these don't work on merchant
>> silicon boxes since the EX3200...
>
> Excuses seems strong word, it implies you know what merchant silicon
> EX3200 has and it implies you know it can push two and swap, which it
> can't.

autobw never worked on EX3200 and similar vintage because they'd
periodically dump impossible values into the statistics files and then try
to do reservations near integer-width limits. Who implied anything about
needing more than one label?

-Rob


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

Hi,

On Wed, Jan 22, 2020 at 05:41:19PM +0200, Mark Tinka wrote:
> but it doesn't look to me like they will be bother the ASR920 anytime soon.

If you do more than "basic packet switching" the ASR920 is so
amazingly buggy... so having an alternative in this space for
"basic IP/IPv6/MPLS routing for little money" would be certainly
welcome.

gert
--
"If was one thing all people took for granted, was conviction that if you
feed honest figures into a computer, honest figures come out. Never doubted
it myself till I met a computer with a sense of humor."
Robert A. Heinlein, The Moon is a Harsh Mistress

Gert Doering - Munich, Germany gert@greenie.muc.de

On 22/Jan/20 18:48, Gert Doering wrote:

>
> If you do more than "basic packet switching" the ASR920 is so
> amazingly buggy... so having an alternative in this space for
> "basic IP/IPv6/MPLS routing for little money" would be certainly
> welcome.

This is what I've been saying since 2009.

Cisco had the ME3600X/3800X, and the only real competitor at the time
was the Brocade CES/CER2000 NetIron.

Juniper missed the mark.

Fast forward to 2020, Cisco have the ASR920 and there is no real
competitor from any vendor that can challenge them, really.

Again, Juniper missed the mark.

One thing Juniper have been certain about telling me - they do not plan
to create a MX204-Lite.

Not. Going. To. Happen.

For them, their Metro-E solution is the ACX - and judging from past
performance, my level of faith is very low. When a vendor tells me that,
"Well, the new Broadcom chip is miles better than the old Broadcom
chip", I get the feeling that in 2030, they will still be using that
very same line.

If Cisco can develop a custom chip for the ASR920 that can be sold for a
decent price and still do the work in the field, Juniper's refusal, to
me, is rooted in their bedrock internal principles... the same ones that
made them famous for, "A single Junos for all our boxes". We know how
well that turned out.

Mark.