[j-nsp] MS-MIC-16G Licenses

[ryanL]

i slapped these modules into my mx80's, upgraded to 13.3-something to fix a
NAT bug, and haven't had any issues or need for license. but, i only use
them for NAT stuff... so your mileage etc.

ry at iad1-er1> show system license
License usage:
                                 Licenses     Licenses    Licenses    Expiry
  Feature name                       used    installed      needed
  scale-subscriber                      0         1000           0
 permanent
  scale-l2tp                            0         1000           0
 permanent
  scale-mobile-ip                       0         1000           0
 permanent

Licenses installed: none

ry at iad1-er1> show version
Hostname: iad1-er1
Model: mx80
Junos: 13.3R4.6
JUNOS Base OS boot [13.3R4.6]
JUNOS Base OS Software Suite [13.3R4.6]
JUNOS Kernel Software Suite [13.3R4.6]
JUNOS Crypto Software Suite [13.3R4.6]
JUNOS Packet Forwarding Engine Support (MX80) [13.3R4.6]
JUNOS Online Documentation [13.3R4.6]
JUNOS Services Application Level Gateways [13.3R4.6]
JUNOS Services Jflow Container package [13.3R4.6]
JUNOS Services Stateful Firewall [13.3R4.6]
JUNOS Services NAT [13.3R4.6]
JUNOS Services RPM [13.3R4.6]
JUNOS Services Crypto [13.3R4.6]
JUNOS Services SSL [13.3R4.6]
JUNOS Services IPSec [13.3R4.6]
JUNOS Routing Software Suite [13.3R4.6]


On Wed, Apr 29, 2015 at 6:49 AM, Stepan Kucherenko <twh at megagroup.ru> wrote:

> We've bought JSAM licenses but it looks like they aren't enforced (yet?).
> I didn't even install them. Although I have to say its usage is low right
> now so I don't know if it will hold true later.
>
> Default MX5 licenses are subscriber/l2tp/mobile ip and those probably are
> enforced.
>
>
>
> As for what is better...it's hard to say. I know a fixed ISP doing CGN on
> MX480 with MS-MPC and it works okay, they definitely are happy to finally
> throw away their Linux NAT boxes.
>
> I also know a mobile ISP doing CGN for mobile customers on SRX because it
> happened to be cheaper for them. Don't know which SRX model though.
>
> So apparently both approaches work. Although personally I'd prefer SRXes,
> if only because I've spent too much time debugging the MX80/MS-MIC
> combination.
>
>
>
> SRX1400 or SRX3400 would probably be the closest to MS-MIC16 but again
> it's hard to say because the only number I saw on MS-MIC is "up to 9Gbps of
> service throughput". Not very informative, especially compared to detailed
> SRX datasheets.
>
>
>
>
>
> On 29.04.2015 16:24, Colton Conor wrote:
>
>> Does anyone have any clarification on if the  MS-MIC-16G has any included
>> licenses by default? For example, if I buy a  MS-MIC-16G off ebay or used
>> form somewhere else, and slide it into the back of a MX5 router. Will any
>> of the MS-MIC-16G features function? Are there any default included
>> licenses that you don't have to enter, but just work?
>>
>> Looking at the Juniper datasheet there are multiple licenses:
>>
>>
>> JAA-NAT Junos Address Aware CGNAT
>> JTV-FLOW Junos Traffic Vision J-FLOW
>> JVPN-E Junos VPN Site Secure IPSEC
>> JNS-FW Junos Network Secure [Stateful Firewall]
>> JSAM Juniper Secure Address Management (NAT, Jflow, IPsec, SFW)
>>
>> I know the MX 5 for example includes some licenses by just buying the box
>> that you don't necessarily have to enter. For example, inline J-flow 5G
>> license is included, works, but doesn't show up on a show licenses
>> command.
>>
>> Is the  MS-MIC-16G better than a SRX for IPSEC, NAT, and
>> Firewall functions? Which SRX model is closest to a MS-MIC-16G
>> price/feature wise?
>> _______________________________________________
>> 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
>