[j-nsp] MX304 Port Layout

[Mark Tinka]

On 7/2/23 15:19, Saku Ytti wrote:

> Right as is MX304.
>
> I don't think this is 'my definition', everything was centralised
> originally, until Cisco7500 came out, which then had distributed
> forwarding capabilities.
>
> Now does centralisation truly mean BOM benefit to vendors? Probably
> not, but it may allow to address one lower margin market which as
> lower per-port performance needs, without cannibilising larger margin
> market.

Technically, do we not think that an oversubscribed Juniper box with a 
single Trio 6 chip with no fabric is feasible? And is it not being built 
because Juniper don't want to cannibalize their other distributed 
compact boxes?

The MX204, for example, is a single Trio 3 chip that is oversubscribed 
by an extra 240Gbps. So we know they can do it. The issue with the MX204 
is that most customers will run out of ports before they run out of 
bandwidth.

I don't think it's that vendors using Broadcom to oversubscribe a 
high-capacity chip is the issue. It's that other vendors with in-house 
silicon won't do the same with their own silicon.


Mark.