<div dir="ltr"><p class="MsoNormal" style="margin:0in;font-size:11pt;font-family:Calibri,sans-serif"><a name="_Hlk23927992">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.</a></p>
<p class="MsoNormal" style="margin:0in;font-size:11pt;font-family:Calibri,sans-serif"> </p>
<p class="MsoNormal" style="margin:0in;font-size:11pt;font-family:Calibri,sans-serif"><a href="https://www.juniper.net/documentation/us/en/software/junos/network-mgmt/topics/topic-map/snmp-mibs-and-traps-supported-by-junos-os.html" style="color:blue">https://www.juniper.net/documentation/us/en/software/junos/network-mgmt/topics/topic-map/snmp-mibs-and-traps-supported-by-junos-os.html</a></p>
<p class="MsoNormal" style="margin:0in;font-size:11pt;font-family:Calibri,sans-serif"> </p>
<p class="MsoNormal" style="margin:0in 0in 0in 0.5in;font-size:11pt;font-family:Calibri,sans-serif">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:</p>
<p class="MsoNormal" style="margin:0in 0in 0in 0.5in;font-size:11pt;font-family:Calibri,sans-serif"> </p>
<p class="MsoNormal" style="margin:0in 0in 0in 0.5in;font-size:11pt;font-family:Calibri,sans-serif">ifInOctets</p>
<p class="MsoNormal" style="margin:0in 0in 0in 0.5in;font-size:11pt;font-family:Calibri,sans-serif"> </p>
<p class="MsoNormal" style="margin:0in 0in 0in 0.5in;font-size:11pt;font-family:Calibri,sans-serif">ifOutOctets</p>
<p class="MsoNormal" style="margin:0in 0in 0in 0.5in;font-size:11pt;font-family:Calibri,sans-serif"> </p>
<p class="MsoNormal" style="margin:0in 0in 0in 0.5in;font-size:11pt;font-family:Calibri,sans-serif">ifHCInOctets</p>
<p class="MsoNormal" style="margin:0in 0in 0in 0.5in;font-size:11pt;font-family:Calibri,sans-serif"> </p>
<p class="MsoNormal" style="margin:0in 0in 0in 0.5in;font-size:11pt;font-family:Calibri,sans-serif">ifHCOutOctets</p>
<p class="MsoNormal" style="margin:0in;font-size:11pt;font-family:Calibri,sans-serif"> </p>
<p class="MsoNormal" style="margin:0in;font-size:11pt;font-family:Calibri,sans-serif"> </p>
<p class="MsoNormal" style="margin:0in;font-size:11pt;font-family:Calibri,sans-serif"><span style="font-size:10pt;font-family:Tele-GroteskUlt">Thanks,</span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal" style="margin:0in;font-size:11pt;font-family:Calibri,sans-serif"><span style="font-size:10pt;font-family:Tele-GroteskUlt">Michael Fiumano</span><span style="font-size:10pt;font-family:"TeleGrotesk Next Medium""><br></span><br></p>
<p class="MsoNormal" style="margin:0in;font-size:11pt;font-family:Calibri,sans-serif"> </p>
<p class="MsoNormal" style="margin:0in;font-size:11pt;font-family:Calibri,sans-serif"><b>From:</b> NANOG <b>On Behalf Of </b>Mark Tinka<br>
<b>Sent:</b> Monday, May 10, 2021 10:25 AM<br>
<b>To:</b> <a href="mailto:nanog@nanog.org" style="color:blue">nanog@nanog.org</a><br>
<b>Subject:</b> Re: Juniper hardware recommendation</p>
<p class="MsoNormal" style="margin:0in;font-size:11pt;font-family:Calibri,sans-serif"> </p>
<p class="MsoNormal" style="line-height:12pt;background:rgb(255,235,156);margin:0in;font-size:11pt;font-family:Calibri,sans-serif"><span style="font-size:11pt;background-color:rgb(255,255,255)"> </span><br></p>
<p class="MsoNormal" style="margin:0in 0in 12pt;font-size:11pt;font-family:Calibri,sans-serif">On 5/10/21 16:19, <a href="mailto:aaron1@gvtc.com" style="color:blue">aaron1@gvtc.com</a> wrote:</p>
<p class="MsoNormal" style="margin:0in;font-size:11pt;font-family:Calibri,sans-serif">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.</p>
<p class="MsoNormal" style="margin:0in 0in 12pt;font-size:11pt;font-family:Calibri,sans-serif"><br>
Trio will always provide better features, but come with the price tag to boot.<br>
<br>
<br>
</p>
<p class="MsoNormal" style="margin:0in;font-size:11pt;font-family:Calibri,sans-serif"> </p>
<p class="MsoNormal" style="margin:0in;font-size:11pt;font-family:Calibri,sans-serif">I’m looking at the MX240 for the SCB3E MPC10E hefty with 100
gig ports</p>
<p class="MsoNormal" style="margin:0in;font-size:11pt;font-family:Calibri,sans-serif"><br>
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.<br>
<br>
Mark.</p></div>