[j-nsp] Juniper MX104

Paul Stewart paul at paulstewart.org
Thu Nov 14 06:51:41 EST 2013 

We have pushed MX80 very hard with PPPOE and found the 4k number to be realistic.  Of course it depends on what other features you are turning on as well.

I worked with Juniper team to perform POC’s and load testing with “real life environments” and at the end of the testing (and based on what I see with several of them deployed at customers) the 4k number is “safe”.

The MX104 most likely won’t be able to handle any more subscribers than 4k neither - but have not seen any POC”s or deployments yet on that hardware.

Paul


On Nov 13, 2013, at 1:46 AM, Christopher E. Brown <chris.brown at acsalaska.net> wrote:

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

More information about the juniper-nsp mailing list