> Saku Ytti > Sent: Friday, February 15, 2019 8:41 AM > > On Fri, Feb 15, 2019 at 9:55 AM Mark Tinka <mark.ti...@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. > I don't think aiming for good PPS is the case. See KB33477, if the "spare" capacity was there to boost the available pps budget for the artificially limited number of ports I don't think there would be any KB33477. Maybe some other architectural challenge, don't know?
Also this could be asked of any platform from any vendor, just give us 48x 40/100GE ports for each NPU and we'll figure out what to do with those. Maybe there will be use-cases where I enable all of them as I don't expect much traffic/pps to be generated on each port and maybe there will be cases where I enable just one port as I expect 64b frames @ line-rate and have 100k lines in the filter matching for packet size. You actually reminded me of the A9K-24X10GE vs A9K-36X10GE (yes please, I'll have 36 ports variant and I'll decide what to do with them). adam
