[j-nsp] ACX5448 & ACX710

[Colton Conor]

We too have the ACX5048 and QFX5100's, and have been unhappy with them
both. They both have the same Trident II chip set, but run different code
which is annoying to say the least.  Not to mention these aren't really
built for Metro-E deployments. They are not hardened, so datacenter only.
Plus, the don't support 23 inch racks nor 2 post racks. Makes them hard to
put in a customers site.

I looked at the ASR920 just now, it has too few 10G ports on it. The NCS
540 seems to be more ideal for our needs. Does the NCS 540 fit the bill?

On Wed, Jan 22, 2020 at 10:05 AM Alexandre Guimaraes <
alexandre.guimaraes at ascenty.com> wrote:

> Mark and gents.
>
>         Juniper really doesn't care about Metro services, since ACX5048,
> "The Promissed" equipment that was ready to solve our problems regarding
> port density and functions, but... ACX5048 doesn't work as expected as
> Giuliano said(Giuliano is my SE), We brought some ACX5048... in less than a
> month of operation, we remove those box from network, they became a layer2
> switch only. So Juniper release the new ACX, but the problems still the
> same.
>
>         From my perspective, they don't have time to develop a good
> software and they just release anything for us thinking that someday, they
> will correct the software of the new hardwar, and we will be happy, but
> they just forget that we provide services and we have SLA. I have my
> personal cents about this subject...
>
>         MX, maybe, is the most stable hardware/software that they had in
> this moment. But there is no good density of ports, or we had to choose
> what type of ports we had to work on with, I can't accept this, a
> MPC7E-MRATE working with only 4 100Gb ports... (aahhh this is because de
> backplane bla bla bla bla....) hardware release with bad development to run
> against market... to not lose the market.
>
>         Other problem that I have here, is with QFX5100 platform, using a
> functionality(version 14.1X53-D35.3), that they remove at the newest
> release software, and, they(Juniper) don't had solution for that and, they
> really don't care....
>
>         Now I have a big problem in large scale, since I have hundreds of
> QFX5100, can't upgrade due that, and JTAC don't support that old release
> anymore.
>
>         And, I don't want to talk about QFX5120.... deception...
>
>
> This is my cent, and my feelings about.
>
>
> Att
> Alexandre
>
>
> Em 22/01/2020 12:41, "juniper-nsp em nome de Mark Tinka" <
> juniper-nsp-bounces at puck.nether.net em nome de mark.tinka at seacom.mu>
> escreveu:
>
>
>
>     On 22/Jan/20 17:17, Eric Van Tol wrote:
>
>     >
>     > Which is something many of us smaller providers have been begging
> them for YEARS to make. Hopefully it doesn't have restrictions on port
> configurations like the MX204 or weird filtering limitations like the
> original ACX boxes. The ASR920 is popular for a reason - they are
> rock-solid, offered decent port configurations, sensible and reasonably
> priced licensing, small form-factor and features decent enough for an
> access MPLS device.
>
>     And, custom silicon that does, pretty much, what you're used to seeing
>     on IOS XE boxes.
>
>     Juniper, I've realized, are really not interested in the Metro-E space.
>     I know it's great to think merchant silicon is the answer to get into
>     that space, but it doesn't look to me like they will be bother the
>     ASR920 anytime soon.
>
>     Mark.
>     _______________________________________________
>     juniper-nsp mailing list juniper-nsp at puck.nether.net
>
> https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=https-3A__puck.nether.net_mailman_listinfo_juniper-2Dnsp&d=DwICAg&c=euGZstcaTDllvimEN8b7jXrwqOf-v5A_CdpgnVfiiMM&r=d3qAF5t8mugacLDeGpoAguKDWyMVANad_HfrWBCDH1s&m=TU6hC3CmliVPupj04_YNYHTF5VVsspISdyOjUEnr2TM&s=r-fSdwLUay6e6rXEc7nibhLO1FNxOw1U62KPIFpFeF4&e=
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> juniper-nsp mailing list juniper-nsp at puck.nether.net
> https://puck.nether.net/mailman/listinfo/juniper-nsp
>