> On Jul 9, 2015, at 9:39 AM, Mark Tinka <mark.ti...@seacom.mu> wrote:
>
>
>
> On 9/Jul/15 16:34, Adam Vitkovsky wrote:
>
>> But MX104 can't hold the full internet routing table in forwarding-table so
>> it's good only for peering or can it indeed?
>
> Can't it? I've assumed it can. Haven't actually deployed one yet.
We have an MX104 in use taking several full v4 and v6 tables and it’s working
fine.
> show route summary
Router ID:
inet.0: 541008 destinations, 541019 routes (541007 active, 0 holddown, 1 hidden)
Direct: 23 routes, 22 active
Local: 27 routes, 27 active
BGP: 540942 routes, 540931 active
Static: 27 routes, 27 active
inet6.0: 22676 destinations, 22685 routes (22675 active, 0 holddown, 1 hidden)
Direct: 20 routes, 12 active
Local: 25 routes, 25 active
BGP: 22631 routes, 22629 active
Static: 9 routes, 9 active
My only complaints about the MX104 are:
1) It’s 3.5U high, making rack planning a little weird, and requiring me to buy
a hard to find half-U blank panel
2) It uses unusual power connectors on its power supplies, so you have to plan
to buy special power cords just for this.
3) The Routing Engine CPU is a little slow for commits
We’re just treating it like an MX240/480/960 that has a pair of MPC’s built in,
and a bonus 4x10G MIC.
_______________________________________________
juniper-nsp mailing list juniper-nsp@puck.nether.net
https://puck.nether.net/mailman/listinfo/juniper-nsp
