[j-nsp] ACX5448 & ACX710

[Tim Durack]

We have a very small deployment of ASR920 running 16.12. Work well for us,
and we do some pretty kinky/exotic stuff: small scale BNG, Internet in VRF,
selective FIB, port-based DHCPv4/v6/PD, IP unnumbered, IPoDWDM...

If you can stomach the BU wars, UADP is a nice ASIC - I think the Cat9k has
legs, but the Enterprise BU is definitely in a parallel universe. I asked
about porting XR to run on UADP. That didn't really go over well.

I am wary of NCS due to the merchant silicon and general uncertainty - why
announce the Cisco 8000 with no family loyalty? Looks like a replacement to
me.

Tim:>

On Wed, Jan 22, 2020 at 1:18 PM Colton Conor <colton.conor at gmail.com> wrote:

> 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
> >
> _______________________________________________
> juniper-nsp mailing list juniper-nsp at puck.nether.net
> https://puck.nether.net/mailman/listinfo/juniper-nsp
>


-- 
Tim:>