[j-nsp] SNMP on logical-system fxp0

[Brandon Ross]

On Thu, 25 Apr 2013, Pavel Lunin wrote:

> Well, I agree, if you are brave enough to run a real OOB management
> network, you have reasons to use fxp0 on the devices, that don't have 1G
> ports, though I believe it's at least not cheaper than buying 1GE ports
> just for management :)

I suppose that's a local calculation of all of the costs and complexity 
involved.

> But in my experience real OOB mgt is a too rare case in real life of the 
> ISP world.

We have very different experiences then.  I'm not claiming it's a 
majority, but I will claim that many of the largest networks in the world 
do, indeed, have true OOB management networks.  Enough that the business 
case for what is probably a fairly minimal cost for Juniper to keep the 
hardware in the box for fxp0 makes sense.

> BTW, yes, there is much more sense in real OOB management in the access, 
> but you first gave an example of an all 10/100GE core, which is a 
> slightly different thing. And even in the access nothing really pushes 
> you to use fxp0 for OOB mgt.

I see no difference in the purpose or usage of the port weather the box is 
access or core.  If there's no economical ports in the box already, fxp0 
makes sense.  In many networks, consistency is more important than the 
cost of each deployment, so in those cases it may be cheaper overall for 
ALL Juniper devices to be managed via fxp0.

> If you know what and why you are doing, there is no problem. But most
> people, who I talk with about using fxp0, want to use it just because,
> with no good reason except "it is specially developed by vendors, so I
> think, it's better to manage devices through it" and they just don't
> really understand implications of bypassing data plane.

Yup, there are many idiots out there that will do anything vendors say. 
There's even more that think they know what they are doing because they 
were able to pass the vendors trivia quiz.  You can't fix stupid and 
taking away the tools that not-stupid need to do their job only results in 
boxes that not-stupid don't want to buy.

So far, I'd say, Juniper caters to not-stupid.  Stupid is just going to 
buy Cisco anyway because their fancy VP showed up and took the VPs out 
golfing.

> BTW, I don't say it's useless. When you need to remotely upload software
> to a non-operationg box, this is an only option. But I'm sure it's
> better to not use it for every day routine management like SNMP, if only
> you have an option.

You did not.  I've been partially responding to Saku who said, "My view is 
that fxp0 is completely useless interface."  My apologies if my comments 
implied that you made such a statement.

-- 
Brandon Ross                                      Yahoo & AIM:  BrandonNRoss
+1-404-635-6667                                                ICQ:  2269442
Schedule a meeting:  https://doodle.com/bross            Skype:  brandonross