[j-nsp] EX4550 and MX104

[Mark Tinka]

On 18/Jul/18 18:03, Pavel Lunin wrote:

> I might be wrong but if memory serves, M/T had no ethernet switching. So
> all this bridge-domain machinery should have come around with the MX
> series. It's not legacy but intentionally designed to be like this, as it's
> SP-oriented.

That's exactly the way I remembered it.

I mean, M/T had basic 802.1Q VLAN trunking support, but that was about it.

STP and them first appeared on the MX.

> And yeah, I forgot that MX also has two Ethernet switching config styles.
> So... I am out of fingers to count the ether-switching config styles in
> JUNOS. And it's OK, in fact. The point of this discussion is that adding
> more instances is not the right way to reduce the number of them. And it's
> arguable if it really needs to be reduced. JUNOS has always been known to
> have multiple ways to do the same thing. And it's OK.

+1.


> It's not comparable with the MX as a business. So let's mess everything up
> twice a year, because "JUNOS was a success at the beginning, we want a
> single JUNOS for everything, it must be a success again". Or just because
> "it doesn't sale". But yes, if you change the product behavior twice a
> year, it won't sale. ScreenOS had a kind of 30% of the market and SRX...
> you know... Not because it's a bad firewall but because it was a lot of
> pain at the time of that ScreenOS->JUNOS migration.

Don't remind me - just when we were about to settle on the J-series as a
route reflector, it went and became the SRX with firewall or packet mode.


> BTW, a few months ago I've promenaded around in one of the major European
> telco sites just to have a look at what people had in their racks. Oh Dear,
> I've seen A LOT of Netscreen/SSG/ISG and even a couple of J-series. Racked,
> powered, blinking LEDs. This should be some OOB in most cases, I think, but
> anyway, they are still here! I was impressed.

Doesn't surprise me, if I'm honest.

We still use the Cisco 7201 as looking glass routers, because they were
well built for purpose and were supported for a very long time. And even
when Cisco decided to stop forgetting about them, it was because you
knew they had squeezed them for all they were worth, and it was now time
for something else. Not these haphazard changes that you aptly describe
in this post.

Mark.