[j-nsp] MX10K3 Experiences, ~2 years later

[Eldon Koyle]

My biggest complaint about the mx10003 is the absurd port restrictions.  If
you use pic-level config, you can run all ports at 40G or 4x10G, but if you
want to use port-level speed config you have to set one of every 4 ports to
100G on pic 1 in each slot to be able to use all of the ports.

Be sure to check your desired config for compatibility:
https://apps.juniper.net/home/port-checker/index.html

-- 
Eldon

On Thu, Dec 19, 2019, 01:05 Mark Tinka <mark.tinka at seacom.mu> wrote:

>
>
> On 18/Dec/19 19:47, Jason Lixfeld wrote:
> > Hi,
> >
> > I wanted to follow up on a thread from a couple of years ago about the
> MX10003
> >
> > https://lists.gt.net/nsp/juniper/63670?search_string=mx10003
> >
> > We’ve got a bunch of MX204s that we use for peering and transit over LDP
> based L3VPN pinned up with IS-IS and BFD.  We’re quite happy with these
> boxes from a cost, density and feature perspective.  We’ve had no issues
> with them at all so far in the few months that they’ve been in the field.
> >
> > Now, we’re looking for something to use in the same role, but with
> higher 100G port density.  The MX10003 seems like a good fit from a cost
> perspective verses something like an MX240, but also from a feature and
> performance perspective because it uses the same hardware as the MX204 in
> terms of EA Trios and CPU on the MPC, along with the CPU and memory on the
> RE (except the MX204 has 32GB on the RE as opposed to 64GB on the MX10003).
> >
> > Wondering how folks are feeling about these boxes a couple of years
> later.
>
> We like the MX10003 as a 100Gbps edge router. It comes with the
> additional port density and hardware redundancy that the MX204 doesn't
> have, so it does have a role to play.
>
> For customers that want 100Gbps ports, we will dump them on the MX10003.
>
> Mark.
> _______________________________________________
> juniper-nsp mailing list juniper-nsp at puck.nether.net
> https://puck.nether.net/mailman/listinfo/juniper-nsp
>