[j-nsp] Juniper MX104

Wed Nov 13 01:46:56 EST 2013

Scaling on the MX80 is supposed to be 16,000 per chassis, 8,000 per MIC
and 4,000 per PIC and a 8,000 limit on PPPoE sessions.

In order to max out you need 2 MICs loaded with at least 1 port per PIC
active for subscriber term at up to 4k per.

Also, vlan units and PPPoE units both count as a sub... So if doing uniq
stacked tag combo per sub w/ PPPoE you are using a unit at both the vlan
and pppoe level per sub and when you hit the 8k limit you are also out
of interfaces.

I have not personally seen a MX80 with that many active subs yet, will
have to see if things run out of juice before the hard limits are reached.

On 11/12/13 7:52 PM, Skeeve Stevens 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 ;  <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 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
> 

-- 
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Christopher E. Brown   <chris.brown at acsalaska.net>   desk (907) 550-8393
                                                     cell (907) 632-8492
IP Engineer - ACS
------------------------------------------------------------------------