[j-nsp] Difference in "MX204" and "MX204-HW-BASE"?

[Richard McGovern]

Ah, I forgot that point. None of the features should be “hard” enforced, no matter what SW release you are running. You should receive many error/warning messages regarding using a feature for which you do not have a license – “soft” enforcement we call it. So no feature should not be able to be configured or used because of lack of a license. If a license is needed for testing, reach out to your Juniper SE or go through Partner to get a temp license.

Juniper protects against user using features they did not actually pay for via EULA – End User License Agreement - https://webdownload.juniper.net/swdl/dl/secure/site/1/record/167857.html?pf=QFX5120-32C

A “MX204” hardware and SKU knew nothing about Flex license. That model was pre-Flex. That model had no licenses if my memory is right – full Junos which was changed at $10K – very good deal I might add!!. That model (IC bus name) thinks differently than model with name MX204-HW-Base or MX204-HWBASE-AC-FS (FS = Flex Software maybe????). Both of these models know about Flex and the requirement match of feature being used and license installed.

Now, unknown to me (they don’t tell SEs any of this info either) there could have been “hard” enforcement added in some newer SW release – RN should point this out (stop laughing please!!!). Juniper internal have discussed implementing “hard” enforcement over the years, and with potential change in product management (just happens) that view may change. Can’t tell you yah or nah on hard enforcement.

Hopefully this helps, and explains a little of the history of how MX got to where it is today, and beyond.

Rich

Richard McGovern
Sr Sales Engineer, Juniper Networks
978-618-3342

I’d rather be lucky than good, as I know I am not good
I don’t make the news, I just report it




Juniper Business Use Only
From: chiel <chiel at gmx.net>
Date: Wednesday, January 10, 2024 at 4:13 PM
To: Richard McGovern <rmcgovern at juniper.net>, Tom Beecher <beecher at beecher.cc>
Cc: juniper-nsp at puck.nether.net <juniper-nsp at puck.nether.net>
Subject: Re: [j-nsp] Difference in "MX204" and "MX204-HW-BASE"?
[External Email. Be cautious of content]


On 10/01/2024 18:50, Richard McGovern wrote:
> So basically without some Feature License tied the HW SN via some Flex
> Feature License, it is a good boat anchor!

So why does the MX204 I currently have and doesn't have any license
installed on it is running BGP/OSPF without any problems on version
22.3R3.8? If I lookup the SN on the Juniper website [1] I see "MX204".
If I lookup other SN from "MX204-HW-BASE" I do see "MX204-HW-BASE"
instead of "MX204".

So I guess "MX204" doesn't enforce the license?

I guess another option is not to go above version 22.2R1?

[1] https://entitlementsearch.juniper.net/