MX204 applications, (was about BGP RR design)

Fri Feb 15 08:40:59 UTC 2019

On Fri, Feb 15, 2019 at 9:55 AM Mark Tinka <mark.tinka at seacom.mu> wrote:

> > MX204 be good for that ?
>
> I'm sure it will be - it's an MPC7 in a cage :-).

Anyone know why MX204 has so few ports? It seems like it only has WAN
side used, leaving FAB side entirely unused, throwing away 50% of free
capacity.

MX80/MX104 have both sides for revenue ports.

I would GLADLY take 50% more ports in MX204, without taking any more
PPS or QoS bandwidth.

Is this because we as a community are so anal towards vendors about
PPS performance that JNPR marketing forbade them making pizza-box MPC7
using all the capacity in fears of people being angry about not being
able to do good PPS on all ports?

As far as I understand, it would have been zero cost to have double
ports in MX204, if you don't want to use them, there is capex
efficient vendor-agnostic, single-spare solution[0] to turn any
platform back into full PPS platform.
I want my free ports, in metro application you are limited by your
east+west capacity and you can never see more PPS, but you want to add
more edges.

[0] http://z.ip.fi/BVLE

-- 
  ++ytti