[j-nsp] MX304 Port Layout

[Andrey Kostin]

Mark Tinka писал(а) 2023-06-09 10:26:
> On 6/9/23 16:12, Saku Ytti wrote:
> 
>> I expect many people in this list have no need for more performance
>> than single Trio YT in any pop at all, yet they need ports. And they
>> are not adequately addressed by vendors. But they do need the deep
>> features of NPU.
> 
> This.
> 
> There is sufficient performance in Trio today (even a single Trio chip
> on the board) that people are willing to take an oversubscribed box or
> line card because in real life, they will run out of ports long before
> they run out of aggregate forwarding capacity.
> 
> The MX204, even though it's a pizza box, is a good example of how it
> could do with 8x 100Gbps ports, even though Trio on it will only
> forward 400Gbps. Most use-cases will require another MX204 chassis,
> just for ports, before the existing one has hit anywhere close to
> capacity.

Agree, there is a gap between 204 and 304, but don't forget that they 
belong to different generations. 304 is shiny new with a next level 
performance that's replacing MX10k3. The previous generation was 
announced to retire, but life of MX204 was extended because Juniper 
realized that they don't have anything atm to replace it and probably 
will lose revenue. Maybe this gap was caused by covid that slowed down 
the new platform. And possibly we may see a single NPU model based on 
the new gen chip, because chips for 204 are finite. At least it would be 
logical to make it, considering success of MX204.
> 
> Really, folk are just chasing the Trio capability, otherwise they'd
> have long solved their port-count problems by choosing any
> Broadcom-based box on the market. Juniper know this, and they are
> using it against their customers, knowingly or otherwise. Cisco was
> good at this back in the day, over-subscribing line cards on their
> switches and routers. Juniper have always been a little more purist,
> but the market can't handle it because the rate of traffic growth is
> being out-paced by what a single Trio chip can do for a couple of
> ports, in the edge.

I think that it's not rational to make another chipset with lower 
bandwidth, easier to limit an existing more powerful chip. Then it leads 
to MX5/MX10/MX40/MX80 hardware and licensing model. It could be a single 
Trio6 with up to 1.6T in access ports and 1.6T in uplink ports with low 
features. Maybe it will come, who knows, let's watch ;)

Kind regards,
Andrey