Re: MX204 Virtual Chassis Setup

[Matt Erculiani <merculiani () gmail com>]

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 () 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@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