[j-nsp] Juniper MX104

[Andrew Jones]

The datasheet for the MX-104 ( 
http://www.juniper.net/us/en/local/pdf/datasheets/1000446-en.pdf ) has 
the MIC listed:
MS-MIC-16G Multiservices MIC with 16GB of memory for the MX5, MX10, 
MX40, MX80 and MX104 as well as Type 1, Type 2, Type 3 and Type 4 MPCs 
for the MX240, MX480, MX960, MX2010 and MX2020. supports separately 
licensed Junos Address Aware (CGNAT); Junos Traffic vision (flow 
monitoring) Junos vPN Site Secure (IPsec) and Junos Network Secure 
(Stateful Firewall)

No mention of MPC anywhere.



On 13.11.2013 16:33, Skeeve Stevens wrote:
> Isn't that using the front MIC slot though?
>
> The rear 'Services Slot' is an MPC slot isn't it?
>
> Based on the following:
>
> MS-MIC 16G - MS-MIC with 16 GB of memory provides 9GB of service
> throughput, occupies single MIC slot on MX5, MX10, MX40, and MX80 3D
> Universal Edge Routers, as well as on the MPC1, MPC2, and MPC3 cards 
> for
> the MX2020, MX2010, MX960, MX480,
> and MX240 3D Universal Edge Router.
>
> MS-MPC-128 - MS-MPC with 128 GB of memory (32 GB per NPU), provides 
> 60Gbps
> of service throughput, occupies a single slot in MX2020, MX2010, 
> MX960,
> MX480, and MX240 3D Universal Edge Routers
>
> The rear picture of the MX80 at
> 
> http://www.juniper.net/shared/img/products/mx-series/mx80/mx80-rear-high.jpg
>
> Says "MPC 0" and "MIC 1" in smaller writing under it.
>
> From front right slot is also called "1/MIC 1"
>
> I think we need further clarification.
>
>
>
>
> ...Skeeve
>
> *Skeeve Stevens - *eintellego Networks Pty Ltd
> skeeve at eintellegonetworks.com ; www.eintellegonetworks.com
>
> Phone: 1300 239 038; Cell +61 (0)414 753 383 ; skype://skeeve
>
> facebook.com/eintellegonetworks ;  <http://twitter.com/networkceoau>
> linkedin.com/in/skeeve
>
> twitter.com/theispguy ; blog: www.theispguy.com
>
>
> The Experts Who The Experts Call
> Juniper - Cisco - Cloud
>
>
> On Wed, Nov 13, 2013 at 4:04 PM, Ben Dale <bdale at comlinx.com.au> 
> wrote:
>
>> MS-MIC is out for the MX5-80:
>>
>> http://www.juniper.net/us/en/local/pdf/datasheets/1000454-en.pdf
>>
>> doesn't look like there isn't a services port on the back of the 104
>> though:
>>
>>
>> 
>> http://www.juniper.net/shared/img/products/mx-series/mx104/mx104-rear-high.jpg
>>
>> maybe you can use one of the front slots?
>>
>> On 13 Nov 2013, at 2:52 pm, Skeeve Stevens <
>> skeeve+junipernsp at eintellegonetworks.com> wrote:
>>
>> > Does anyone know how many users the MX104 will be able to handle 
>> though?
>> >
>> > The 4000 user limit on the MX80 was quite low.
>> >
>> > Does the MX104 have the services port on the back like the MX80?  
>> I'm
>> waiting for the CGN Services card which was supposed to be released 
>> around
>> now.
>> >
>> >
>> > ...Skeeve
>> >
>> > Skeeve Stevens - eintellego Networks Pty Ltd
>> > skeeve at eintellegonetworks.com ; www.eintellegonetworks.com
>> > Phone: 1300 239 038; Cell +61 (0)414 753 383 ; skype://skeeve
>> > facebook.com/eintellegonetworks ; linkedin.com/in/skeeve
>> > twitter.com/theispguy ; blog: www.theispguy.com
>> >
>> > The Experts Who The Experts Call
>> > Juniper - Cisco - Cloud
>> >
>> >
>> > On Wed, Nov 13, 2013 at 3:46 PM, Ben Dale <bdale at comlinx.com.au> 
>> wrote:
>> > That and I think a lot of the BRAS "migration" functionality 
>> (LNS/LAC
>> etc) was late to the party after being told it wasn't going to 
>> happen for
>> anything lower than the 240.
>> >
>> > On 13 Nov 2013, at 12:51 pm, Bill Blackford <bblackford at gmail.com>
>> wrote:
>> >
>> > > My personal feeling is the MX80 wasn't widely adopted as a lower
>> density
>> > > subscriber box given the lack of redundant REs. The MX104 may 
>> find it's
>> > > niche as a BRAS.
>> > >
>> > >
>> > >
>> > >
>> > > On Tue, Nov 12, 2013 at 5:25 PM, Eric Van Tol 
>> <eric at atlantech.net>
>> wrote:
>> > >
>> > >> One thing to keep in mind about these boxes is that, like the
>> > >> MX5/10/40/80, the built-in 10G ports do not do hierarchical QoS
>> (per-unit
>> > >> scheduling).  I'm confused as to why this is, considering they 
>> are
>> > >> Trio-based routers, but I digress.  I personally don't think 
>> that the
>> > >> astronomical cost to enable the 10G ports on all the low-end MX
>> routers is
>> > >> worth it, considering they can't even do per-unit scheduling.
>> > >>
>> > >> -evt
>> > >>
>> > >>> -----Original Message-----
>> > >>> From: juniper-nsp [mailto:juniper-nsp-bounces at puck.nether.net] 
>> On
>> > >> Behalf Of
>> > >>> joel jaeggli
>> > >>> Sent: Tuesday, November 12, 2013 4:00 PM
>> > >>> To: Saku Ytti
>> > >>> Cc: juniper-nsp at puck.nether.net
>> > >>> Subject: Re: [j-nsp] Juniper MX104
>> > >>>
>> > >>>
>> > >>> On Nov 12, 2013, at 12:46 PM, Saku Ytti <saku at ytti.fi> wrote:
>> > >>>
>> > >>>> On (2013-11-12 20:14 +0000), Tom Storey wrote:
>> > >>>>
>> > >>>>> Why so much just to enable some ports? How do they come up 
>> with
>> that
>> > >>>>> kind of price? Pluck it out of thin air?
>> > >>>>>
>> > >>>>> The hardware has been paid for, and I know thats only list 
>> pricing,
>> > >>>>> but it still seems ridiculous.
>> > >>>>
>> > >>>> The question might have been rhetoric. But I'll bite.
>> > >>>>
>> > >>>> The BOM on these boxes is nothing, I'm guessing less than 
>> 1kUSD. But
>> > >> the
>> > >>>> volume you can sell them also is very very small, so the 
>> margins
>> need
>> > >> to
>> > >>> be
>> > >>>> very high to be able to design and support them.
>> > >>>> Licensing allows you to sell to larger group of people, 
>> people who
>> > >>> normally
>> > >>>> would buy smaller/inferior box, now can afford it,  which in 
>> turn
>> > >> allows
>> > >>> you
>> > >>>> to reduce your margins, making you more competitive.
>> > >>>>
>> > >>>> I actually like it. I wish vendors like Agilent/Ixia, Spirent 
>> would
>> > >> sell
>> > >>>> test-kit with some sort of 'per hours used' license. Lot of 
>> SPs have
>> > >> need
>> > >>> for
>> > >>>> proper testing kit, but only will need them very irregularly. 
>> And
>> > >> renting
>> > >>> is
>> > >>>> always such a chore. It's same thing there, BOM is nothing, 
>> but
>> volume
>> > >> is
>> > >>> even
>> > >>>> lower, so prices are ridiculously high, consequently proper 
>> testing
>> is
>> > >>> very
>> > >>>> rarely done by other than telco size SPs.
>> > >>>
>> > >>> It's one of those things where you work with account team. if 
>> the
>> > >> commercial
>> > >>> terms don't work out for most potential buyers, then the 
>> product
>> won't be
>> > >>> successful and either things will change or they won't.
>> > >>>
>> > >>>> --
>> > >>>> ++ytti
>> > >>>> _______________________________________________
>> > >>>> juniper-nsp mailing list juniper-nsp at puck.nether.net
>> > >>>> https://puck.nether.net/mailman/listinfo/juniper-nsp
>> > >>>>
>> > >>
>> > >>
>> > >> _______________________________________________
>> > >> juniper-nsp mailing list juniper-nsp at puck.nether.net
>> > >> https://puck.nether.net/mailman/listinfo/juniper-nsp
>> > >>
>> > >
>> > >
>> > >
>> > > --
>> > > Bill Blackford
>> > >
>> > > Logged into reality and abusing my sudo privileges.....
>> > > _______________________________________________
>> > > juniper-nsp mailing list juniper-nsp at puck.nether.net
>> > > https://puck.nether.net/mailman/listinfo/juniper-nsp
>> > >
>> >
>> >
>> > _______________________________________________
>> > juniper-nsp mailing list juniper-nsp at puck.nether.net
>> > https://puck.nether.net/mailman/listinfo/juniper-nsp
>> >
>>
>> _______________________________________________
>> juniper-nsp mailing list juniper-nsp at puck.nether.net
>> https://puck.nether.net/mailman/listinfo/juniper-nsp
>>
> _______________________________________________
> juniper-nsp mailing list juniper-nsp at puck.nether.net
> https://puck.nether.net/mailman/listinfo/juniper-nsp