[176611] in North American Network Operators' Group
Re: Juniper MX Sizing
daemon@ATHENA.MIT.EDU (Brad Fleming)
Fri Dec 5 16:10:52 2014
X-Original-To: nanog@nanog.org
From: Brad Fleming <bdflemin@gmail.com>
In-Reply-To: <D3E1DD54-005A-4CB1-A063-1677E22417FB@tripadvisor.com>
Date: Fri, 5 Dec 2014 15:10:40 -0600
To: Shawn Hsiao <phsiao@tripadvisor.com>
Cc: "nanog@nanog.org" <nanog@nanog.org>
Errors-To: nanog-bounces@nanog.org
We haven=E2=80=99t received the MX480 gear yet (POs just went in about a =
week ago). But we tested MX960s with the same RE-S-1800x4 w/ 16GB RAM =
RIB+FIB convergence time was roughly 45sec. We never worried about =
getting a super accurate time for the MX960 because even an =E2=80=9Ceye =
test=E2=80=9D showed it was fast enough for our application and we were =
much more concerned with other parts of the box. Also, we had =
inline-flow reporting configured on the MX960. Actually, the MX960=E2=80=99=
s had a full, production-ready config while the MX104 was tested with a =
stripped down after we discovered the slow convergence.
Once we get some MX480s on the bench I=E2=80=99ll report back.
> On Dec 5, 2014, at 2:35 PM, Shawn Hsiao <phsiao@tripadvisor.com> =
wrote:
>=20
>=20
> MX480 is also not instantaneous, so the same problem applies. Brad, =
do you have the number for MX480 for comparison?
>=20
> What we decided was, given both models suffer the same problems, just =
different duration, we decided to mitigate the problem and not spending =
the money.
>=20
> Thanks.
>=20
>=20
>=20
> On Dec 5, 2014, at 3:01 PM, 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
>=20
