[176604] in North American Network Operators' Group
Re: Juniper MX Sizing
daemon@ATHENA.MIT.EDU (Jason Bothe)
Fri Dec 5 12:08:23 2014
X-Original-To: nanog@nanog.org
From: Jason Bothe <jason@rice.edu>
In-Reply-To: <49EE1A35457387418410F97564A3752B01365DC78E@MSG6.westman.int>
Date: Fri, 5 Dec 2014 11:08:15 -0600
To: Graham Johnston <johnstong@westmancom.com>
Cc: "nanog@nanog.org" <nanog@nanog.org>
Errors-To: nanog-bounces@nanog.org
Graham,
We use both the MX240 and MX480 (for 100G) 1800REs. Very happy with =
this hardware.
Jason Bothe, Manager of Networking
o +1 713 348 5500
m +1 713 703 3552
jason@rice.edu
On 5, Dec 2014, at 10:59 AM, Graham Johnston <johnstong@westmancom.com> =
wrote:
> 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
