[176602] in North American Network Operators' Group
Juniper MX Sizing
daemon@ATHENA.MIT.EDU (Graham Johnston)
Fri Dec 5 11:59:51 2014
X-Original-To: nanog@nanog.org
From: Graham Johnston <johnstong@westmancom.com>
To: "'nanog@nanog.org'" <nanog@nanog.org>
Date: Fri, 5 Dec 2014 16:59:33 +0000
Errors-To: nanog-bounces@nanog.org
I am wondering if anyone can provide their real world experience about sizi=
ng 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 st=
andpoint, as well as power consumption figures. My only concern is whether=
the REs have enough horsepower to churn through the convergence calculatio=
ns at a rate that operators in this situation would find acceptable. I rea=
lize that 'acceptable' is a moving target so I would happily accept feedbac=
k from people using them as to how long it takes and their happiness with t=
he product.
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?
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.
