For you it might not make sense.
For people that use Juniper EVO devices it does.
You can see two screenshots attached one for a Juniper EVO device (PTX10001-36MR) other for a Juniper "normal" device, an MX204.
There are some differences but this by example, impacts also on integrations, such as rancid.
This has been patched +2y ago by them, see:
https://shrubbery.net/pipermail/rancid-announce/2020-January/000037.html
"add device type junos-evo for JunOS EVO"
The difference is, by example when generating the router.db file via your integration we had to either manually fix it by adding junos-evo instead of junos to those devices (or fork and patch your code).
There are plenty other differences, if you search on at your Jira by PTX there were already some reported stuff, but i am sure there's more.
The dump you asked is simply DUMB, since this is an pure peering and transport device with millions of routes into it. I processed it anyways, left if for over 1h and it generated 3GB data (without even completing). I dont think you need the full data, as it contains millions of routing table entries. I can process it and give it to you anyways if you feel necessary... But in the end and for what we need sorted out is basically to parse correctly and add the info on observium that the host is junos-evo and not junos !!!
a JunOS device and a JunOS-EVO device on router.db should look like this:
xxx.xxx;junos;up
yyy.yyy;junos-evo;up
some more details about the junos vs junos-evo:
https://www.juniper.net/documentation/us/en/software/junos/overview-evo/topics/concept/evo-top-differences.html
https://www.juniper.net/documentation/us/en/software/junos/network-mgmt/topics/topic-map/snmp-mibs-and-traps-supported-by-junos-os.html
The ticket itself is +18 months old, i wasn't even expecting any interaction from Observium, but lets see how it goes.
Thank you !
OS definition added, mostly same as junos. Rancid option different.
Fixed in r13176.