MX204 applications, (was about BGP RR design)

Mark Tinka mark.tinka at
Fri Feb 15 08:53:27 UTC 2019

On 15/Feb/19 10:40, Saku Ytti wrote:

> 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.

I'm with you - but from what I can imagine, Juniper did not envisage
this box being used in high-density Metro-E applications (which I
wouldn't mind doing by planting a bunch of customers on 10Gbps that, in
an ideal world, would oversubscribe the 100Gbps uplinks, but in real
life, won't).

If someone from Juniper is reading this thread, I'd take the feedback
and have an "MX204-ME" style box designed with more port density on the
platform without having to increase pps or the uplink.


More information about the NANOG mailing list