Juniper hardware recommendation

Fri May 14 20:32:26 UTC 2021

At least it isn’t Arista, where SVI egress counters are disabled by default, and once enabled count everything UNLESS the packet egresses via a LAG!  Talk about being “impactful”, we’re having to buy new routers to insert behind them, just to count packets so we can bill accurately, and for that matter, have traffic graphs that work at all.  :-(

Adam Thompson
Consultant, Infrastructure Services
[[MERLIN LOGO]]<https://www.merlin.mb.ca/>
100 - 135 Innovation Drive
Winnipeg, MB, R3T 6A8
(204) 977-6824 or 1-800-430-6404 (MB only)
athompson at merlin.mb.ca<mailto:athompson at merlin.mb.ca>
www.merlin.mb.ca<http://www.merlin.mb.ca/>

From: NANOG <nanog-bounces+athompson=merlin.mb.ca at nanog.org> On Behalf Of Michael Fiumano
Sent: Friday, May 14, 2021 12:06 PM
To: nanog at nanog.org
Subject: RE: Juniper hardware recommendation

If accurate interface stats are important to you, MX’s don’t support accurate SNMP Interface Utilization, ie they don’t comply with RFC2665/3635, which seems like a fairly basic thing to do but they decided not to, and has been impactful to me in the past.  So, any SNMP monitoring of an interface will always show less utilization than what is actually occurring, possibly leading to a false sense of security, or delay in augmentation.  Would also affect usage based billing, if you do that.

https://www.juniper.net/documentation/us/en/software/junos/network-mgmt/topics/topic-map/snmp-mibs-and-traps-supported-by-junos-os.html

For M Series, T Series, and MX Series, the SNMP counters do not count the Ethernet header and frame check sequence (FCS). Therefore, the Ethernet header bytes and the FCS bytes are not included in the following four tables:

ifInOctets

ifOutOctets

ifHCInOctets

ifHCOutOctets

Thanks,
Michael Fiumano

From: NANOG On Behalf Of Mark Tinka
Sent: Monday, May 10, 2021 10:25 AM
To: nanog at nanog.org<mailto:nanog at nanog.org>
Subject: Re: Juniper hardware recommendation

On 5/10/21 16:19, aaron1 at gvtc.com<mailto:aaron1 at gvtc.com> wrote:
I prefer MX204 over the ACX5048.  The ACX5048 can’t add L3 interface to an mpls layer 2 type of service.  There are other limitations to the ACX5048 that cause me to want to possibly replace them with MX204’s.  But in defense of the ACX5048, we have gotten some good mileage (a few years now) of good resi/busi bb over vrf’s and also carrier ethernet for businesses and lots of cell backhaul… so they are good for that.  I’ve heard the ACX5448 was even better.

Trio will always provide better features, but come with the price tag to boot.

I’m looking at the MX240 for the SCB3E MPC10E hefty with 100 gig ports

You might want to look at the MX10003, in that case, as well. We are deploying those for 100Gbps service (customer-facing). Works out cheaper than offering 100Gbps service on the MX240/480/960 for the same task.

Mark.
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://mailman.nanog.org/pipermail/nanog/attachments/20210514/bc53bee0/attachment.html>