[176609] in North American Network Operators' Group
Re: Juniper MX Sizing
daemon@ATHENA.MIT.EDU (Brad Fleming)
Fri Dec 5 15:02:07 2014
X-Original-To: nanog@nanog.org
From: Brad Fleming <bdflemin@gmail.com>
In-Reply-To: <49EE1A35457387418410F97564A3752B01365DC8C7@MSG6.westman.int>
Date: Fri, 5 Dec 2014 14:01:55 -0600
To: Graham Johnston <johnstong@westmancom.com>
Cc: "nanog@nanog.org" <nanog@nanog.org>
Errors-To: nanog-bounces@nanog.org
Then you should look for something other then the MX104.
In our testing an MX104 running Junos 13.3R4 with a single, full feed =
took about 4min 25sec to (1) converge the RIB from a router sitting =
0.5ms RTT away and (2) update the FIB with all entries. This performance =
was observed with single RE and dual RE and without any excess services =
running. If we added inline-flow sampling to the device full convergence =
took closer to 5min 45sec in our lab. Efforts to bring the convergence =
time down (without filtering ingress advertisements) with the assistance =
of JTAC proved unsuccessful.
We decided to =E2=80=9Cbite the bullet=E2=80=9D and procure MX480s =
instead but obviously that=E2=80=99s not possible for everyone. If the =
MX480 is out of the question a Brocade CER Premium is an option. We have =
3 in production and see very attractive convergence times; however, they =
have a more limited feature set and you=E2=80=99ll want to understand =
how their FIB memory scales. Apologies, I don=E2=80=99t know the Cisco =
equivalent from the ASR line these days but I=E2=80=99m sure others on =
the list could help out.
> On Dec 5, 2014, at 11:45 AM, Graham Johnston =
<johnstong@westmancom.com> wrote:
>=20
> Shawn,
>=20
> It's more about FIB than RIB as I am concerned about the time it takes =
until MPCs have updated route information after large scale changes in =
routes learned via BGP.
>=20
> Graham Johnston
> Network Planner
> Westman Communications Group
> 204.717.2829
> johnstong@westmancom.com
> =EF=81=90=EF=80=A0think green; don't print this email.
>=20
> -----Original Message-----
> From: Shawn Hsiao [mailto:phsiao@tripadvisor.com]=20
> Sent: Friday, December 05, 2014 11:30 AM
> To: Graham Johnston
> Cc: nanog@nanog.org
> Subject: Re: Juniper MX Sizing
>=20
>=20
> Is your sizing concern just for the RIB, or also for FIB to sync up? =
The latter was a problem for us, but not the former. We also have =
inline-jflow turned on and that is still a work-in-progress in terms of =
impacting performance.
>=20
> We are using MX104 for similar purposes for many months now, and with =
some tweaks in our procedures and configurations we found it to be =
acceptable. MX104 may not be able to process routes as fast as MX480, =
but MX480 is also not instantaneous either so similar risks exist.
>=20
>=20
>=20
> On Dec 5, 2014, at 11:59 AM, Graham Johnston =
<johnstong@westmancom.com> wrote:
>=20
>> I am wondering if anyone can provide their real world experience =
about sizing Juniper MX routers as it relates to BGP. I am needing a =
device that has a mix of layer 2 and 3 features, including MPLS, that =
will have a very low port count requirement that will primarily be used =
at a remote POP site to connect to the local IX as well as one or two =
full route transit providers. The MX104 has what I need from a physical =
standpoint and a data plane standpoint, as well as power consumption =
figures. My only concern is whether the REs have enough horsepower to =
churn through the convergence calculations at a rate that operators in =
this situation would find acceptable. I realize that 'acceptable' is a =
moving target so I would happily accept feedback from people using them =
as to how long it takes and their happiness with the product.
>>=20
>> For those of you that deem the MX104 unacceptable in this kind of =
role and moved up to the MX240, what RE did you elect to use?
>>=20
>> Thanks,
>> Graham Johnston
>> Network Planner
>> Westman Communications Group
>> 204.717.2829
>> johnstong@westmancom.com<mailto:johnstong@westmancom.com>
>> P think green; don't print this email.
>>=20
>=20
