[176612] in North American Network Operators' Group
Re: Juniper MX Sizing
daemon@ATHENA.MIT.EDU (Brad Fleming)
Fri Dec 5 16:52:41 2014
X-Original-To: nanog@nanog.org
From: Brad Fleming <bdflemin@gmail.com>
In-Reply-To: <3EF9B069-DB9F-42D6-965D-A3CE1FD53711@fastreturn.net>
Date: Fri, 5 Dec 2014 15:52:31 -0600
To: Ammar Zuberi <ammar@fastreturn.net>
Cc: "nanog@nanog.org" <nanog@nanog.org>
Errors-To: nanog-bounces@nanog.org
We have both Brocade CER and XMR (predecessor to the MLXe) in our =
environment today. We find both platforms attractive from a price and =
power consumption standpoint. They will both handle the IPv4 and IPv6 =
unicast routing tables today.* The MLXe with MR2 cards is quite a =
formidable box; lots of power and pretty light-weight OS (compared to =
Junos). We found our XMR nodes with original mgmt cards and Gen1 line =
cards converge pretty quick; we=E2=80=99ve never timed one officially =
but my gut feeling is RIB+FIB convergence is roughly 45sec assuming your =
peer is RTT nearby. The CER is a little slower to converge in our =
experience; however, we have them in non-critical portions of the =
network so I can=E2=80=99t really attest to their convergence =
performance. Sorry.. not much in the way of lab readings for our Brocade =
gear.
> On Dec 5, 2014, at 2:09 PM, Ammar Zuberi <ammar@fastreturn.net> wrote:
>=20
> What=E2=80=99s a cheaper alternative to the MX104s?
>=20
> 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.
>=20
> Sorry for being a bit off-topic here.
>=20
> Ammar
>=20
> 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.
>=20
>> On Dec 6, 2014, at 12:01 AM, Brad Fleming <bdflemin@gmail.com =
<mailto: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 <mailto: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 <mailto: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
