[j-nsp] MX304 Port Layout

[Mark Tinka]

On 6/27/23 09:02, Saku Ytti wrote:

> Juniper messaging seems to be geo-specific, in EU their sales seems to
> sell them more willingly than in US. My understanding is that
> basically fusion is dead, but they don't actually have solution for
> access/SP market front-plate, so some sales channels are still
> pitching it as the solution.

Would that be high-density face-plate solutions for access aggregation 
in the data centre, that they are struggling with?

I haven't used their EX platform since the EX4600 broke things, and I 
have never tried their QFX platform. So not sure if Juniper have any 
decent switch offerings for large scale data centre aggregation in 1U 
form factors, that customers are actually happy with.


> Nokia seems very committed to it.
>
> I think the solution space is
>     a) centralised lookup engines - so you have cheap(er) line cards
> for high density low pps/bps
>     b) satellite
>     c) vlan aggregation
>
> Satellite is basically a specific scenario of c), but it does bring
> significant derisking compared to vlan aggregation, as a single
> instance is designing it and can solve some problems better than can
> be solved by vendor agnostic vlan aggregation. Vlan aggregation looks
> very simple on the surface but is fraught with problems, many of which
> are slightly better solved in satellites, and these problems will not
> be identified ahead of time but during the next two decades of
> operation.

Are you suggesting standard 802.1Q/Q-in-Q trunking from a switch into a 
"pricey" router line card that support locally-significant VLAN's per 
port is problematic?


> Centralised boxes haven't been available for quite a few years, but
> hopefully Cisco is changing that, I think it's the right compromise
> for SPs.

I'm still a bit unclear on what you mean by "centralized"... in the 
context of satellite, or standalone?

Mark.