[j-nsp] MX304 Port Layout

[Mark Tinka]

On 6/9/23 15:57, Andrey Kostin wrote:

> 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.

That's true, but the premium being paid for 400Gbps capability that some 
houses may not yet need is probably what is pushing that price up in 
comparison to the MX10003, which does not support 400Gbps.

But to be fair, it will come down to the discounts you can negotiate 
with Juniper. I'm perhaps more concerned because we got good pricing on 
the MX10003, even when we did a like-for-somewhat-like comparison with 
the MX304.

As much as we have struggled with Cisco in the past, this is forcing me 
to see what is available in their ASR99xx boxes. But off-the-bat, form 
factor and port density is poor on the Cisco side, compared to the MX304 
and MX10003.


> 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 ;)

The use-case for MX204 and MX304 is very very different. As you say, 
MX304 is a better alternative for the MX10003 (which I am getting 
conflicting information about re: sale availability from Juniper).

We use the MX204 extensively, but only for peering and routing for 
value-added services too small to plug into a larger MX.


> 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.

Agreed - the MPC7 and MPC10's only make sense for large capacity 
aggregation or backbone links, not as an access port for 100Gbps 
customers. The MX10003 and MX304 are better boxes for 100Gbps access for 
customers.

Conversely, trying to use the MX304 or MX10003 as a core box is too 
costly, since you are paying the premium for edge features in Trio, when 
all you need is basic Ethernet, IS-IS and MPLS.

So the MPC7/MPC10 vs. MX304/10003 use-cases are clearly defined, if 
money is an object.


> 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 ;)

In this world where the kind of traffic you will be pushing through an 
MX304 most likely being majority off-net content, do you really need 
H-QoS :-)?

Mark.