MX204 Virtual Chassis Setup

Wed Aug 23 15:14:40 UTC 2023

Does Fusion not make sense in this case? I've not had a ton of experience
with it, but it does well to add a crazy port count to an otherwise very
port limited device.

-Matt

On Wed, Aug 23, 2023 at 9:01 AM Tom Beecher <beecher at beecher.cc> wrote:

> What would have been nice is if Juniper oversubscribed the face plate of
>> this platform, as most people are more likely to run out of ports than
>> they would the 400Gbps forwarding capacity of Trio.
>>
>
> You're restricted to 400G because they did fixed lane allocations to the
> EA chip on the PFE to each port group. Doing an MRATE setup to let you
> access all 480G would have increased electrical complexity, and
> dramatically increased the price point of the box. There are tradeoffs. The
> more flexibility you want, the more expensive the box is going to be.
>
> I'm not sure they allow oversubscription on anything in the MX line
> anymore honestly. I could be wrong, I've been face down in a specific
> subset of equipment for a while, someone please correct me if I am.
>
> On Wed, Aug 23, 2023 at 2:11 AM Mark Tinka <mark at tinka.africa> wrote:
>
>>
>>
>> On 8/23/23 08:00, Pascal Masha wrote:
>>
>> > Thanks just wanted to know whether it was a supported feature.
>>
>> What would have been nice is if Juniper oversubscribed the face plate of
>> this platform, as most people are more likely to run out of ports than
>> they would the 400Gbps forwarding capacity of Trio.
>>
>> In some cases, we deploy more of these in the same PoP just because we
>> need more ports, not because we need more capacity; and a chassis would
>> not make sense for the function, yet.
>>
>> Mark.
>>
>

-- 
Matt Erculiani, NREMT
ERCUL-ARIN
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://mailman.nanog.org/pipermail/nanog/attachments/20230823/8e640443/attachment.html>