[176610] in North American Network Operators' Group
Re: Juniper MX Sizing
daemon@ATHENA.MIT.EDU (Ammar Zuberi)
Fri Dec 5 15:10:19 2014
X-Original-To: nanog@nanog.org
From: Ammar Zuberi <ammar@fastreturn.net>
In-Reply-To: <E4080A77-0042-4BBA-A090-F653A0354861@gmail.com>
Date: Sat, 6 Dec 2014 00:09:56 +0400
To: Brad Fleming <bdflemin@gmail.com>
Cc: "nanog@nanog.org" <nanog@nanog.org>
Errors-To: nanog-bounces@nanog.org
What=E2=80=99s a cheaper alternative to the MX104s?
We take a full BGP table and are on the AMS-IX and DE-CIX and are =
looking for a new router. The MX series looks a bit out of budget but =
we=E2=80=99re currently looking into the Brocade MLX series. We push =
under 10Gbps, but we do need 10Gbps routing due to capacity issues =
during attacks.
Sorry for being a bit off-topic here.
Ammar
This email and any files transmitted with it are confidential and =
intended solely for the use of the individual or entity to whom they are =
addressed. If you have received it by mistake, please let us know by =
e-mail reply and delete it from your system; you may not copy this =
message or disclose its contents to anyone. Please note that any views =
or opinions presented in this email are solely those of the author and =
do not necessarily represent those of the company. Finally, the =
recipient should check this email and any attachments for the presence =
of viruses. The company accepts no liability for any damage caused by =
any virus transmitted by this email.
> On Dec 6, 2014, at 12:01 AM, Brad Fleming <bdflemin@gmail.com> wrote:
>=20
> Then you should look for something other then the MX104.
>=20
> 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.
>=20
> 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.
>=20
>=20
>> 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
>=20
