[c-nsp] Juniper MX240 & MX480

[Chris Welti]

Regarding CWDM/DWDM, you could always add a QFX5110-48SH as a port extender box to the MX204 with Junos Fusion Provider Edge and sacrifice one or two 100G QSFP28 ports on the MX204.
That way you'd have 2x100G and 48x 1/10G SFP+ ports with a bit of oversubscription in 2RU.
Does anyone know if you can use the onboard 8x SFP+ ports on the MX204 in case you use all four QSFP28 ports in 100G mode? (With a bit of oversubscription?)

Btw, pricing per 100G on the MX204 and MX10003 seems pretty good compared to the other MX boxes and ASR9K.

Regards,
Chris

On 31.10.17 11:08, sthaug at nethelp.no wrote:
>> Am I only one puzzled about MX204 port choice, 4xQSFP28 + 8xSFP+.
>> Seems like it's positioned to datacenters facing upstream? I'd want
>> 2xQSFP28 and maybe 36xSFP+ (oversub is fine), with attractive
>> licensing using SFP+ as SFP only, to add L3 DFZ 1GE aggregation box to
>> JNPR portfolio.
>> I can't imagine rolling this would be expensive, call it MX202 o
>> something. JNPR do me a solid.
> 
> We discussed this with Juniper. We're hearing a lot about space available
> on the faceplate versus number of ports desired. However, the MX204 feels
> mostly irrelevant for us because splitter cables for 10G are not usable
> (since we have quite a bit CWDM/DWDM optics directly in our routers).
> 
> If faceplate space is the issue we would actually be much happier with a
> 2RU box - especially if they could reduce depth to 30 cm or thereabouts.
> 
> Steinar Haug, Nethelp consulting, sthaug at nethelp.no
> _______________________________________________
> cisco-nsp mailing list  cisco-nsp at puck.nether.net
> https://puck.nether.net/mailman/listinfo/cisco-nsp
> archive at http://puck.nether.net/pipermail/cisco-nsp/
>