[j-nsp] MX304 Port Layout

[Andrey Kostin]

Hi Mark,

Not sure why it's eye-watering. The price of fully populated MX304 is 
basically the same as it's predecessor MX10003 but it provides 3.2T BW 
capacity vs 2.4T. If you compare with MX204, then MX304 is about 20% 
expensive for the same total BW, but MX204 doesn't have redundant RE and 
if you use it in redundant chassis configuration you will have to spend 
some BW on "fabric" links, effectively leveling the price if calculated 
for the same BW. I'm just comparing numbers, not considering any real 
topology, which is another can of worms. Most probably it's not worth to 
try to scale MX204s to more than a pair of devices, at least I wouldn't 
do it and consider it ;)
I'd rather call eye-watering prices for MPC7 and MPC10 to upgrade 
existing MX480 routers if you still to use their low-speed ports. Two 
MPC10s with SCB3s upgrade cost more than MX304, but gives 30% less BW 
capacity. For MPC7 this ratio is even worse.
This brings a question, does anybody have an experience with HQoS on 
MX304? I mean just per-subinterface queueing on an interface to a 
switch, not BNG subscribers CoS which is probably another big topic. At 
least I'm not dare yet to try MX304 in BNG role, maybe later ;)

Kind regards,
Andrey

Mark Tinka via juniper-nsp писал(а) 2023-06-08 12:04:

> Trio capacity aside, based on our experience with the MPC7E, MX204 and
> MX10003, we expect it to be fairly straight forward.
> 
> What is holding us back is the cost. The license for each 16-port line
> card is eye-watering. While I don't see anything comparable in ASR99xx
> Cisco-land (in terms of form factor and 100Gbps port density), those
> prices are certainly going to force Juniper customers to look at other
> options. They would do well to get that under control.
> 
>