[j-nsp] MX204 vs. MX240??

[adamv0025 at netconsultings.com]

> Clarke Morledge
> Sent: Friday, November 8, 2019 4:39 PM
> 
> I wanted to resurrect an old thread about the MX204, from a year and a
half
> ago:
> 
> https://lists.gt.net/nsp/juniper/64290
> 
> My understanding is that the MX204 is a 1 RU MPC7, but with a few
> modifications. 
Yup, so be aware of the reboot requirements if you change the layout of the
card/mx204 

> I understand that the eight 10Gig ports have been modified to
> allow for 1 Gig transceivers as well, 
Yup

> and perhaps that the QSFP ports can
> accommodate a pigtail for providing a bunch of 1 Gig connections, if
> necessary.
>
Haven't looked so don't know 
 
> The 10/40/100 capabilities of the MPC7 look great, but there are few
isolated
> cases where I need to support legacy 1 gig, and the MX204 can now handle
> that. Is this true?
> 
Yup on the 10g for sure, but if you need 1G in volume you can pair it with a
simple 1RU switch.

> Also, I understand that the MX204 CPU and other resources are a vast
> improvement over the MX80, 
Anything is better than those old CPUs.

> and that the MX204 can handle multiple full
> Internet route BGP feeds, just as well as the MX240 REs can, without
> compromise in performance.
>
Yup
 
> The newer VM support inside the RE makes the requirements for an
> additional RE less important now, according to my understanding.
> 
The short answer is it's complicated.
You got to compare the probabilities of different failure scenarios,
probabilities of brown failures and see if it's worth spending a significant
extra for a resilient RE, ideally you'd just use 204s in pairs if necessary.


> So, if you do not need a lot of speeds and feeds, and can live without a
> physical backup RE, the MX204 would be a good alternative to a MX240.
>
If you run the numbers you'll see that the mx240 even with half licensed
mpc7 cards has a significantly higher CAPEX&OPEX per revenue port. 
 

adam