Rumors only at this point. Certainly would be a nice upgrade. —
Matthew Crocker President - Crocker Communications, Inc. Managing Partner - Crocker Telecommunications, LLC E: matt...@corp.crocker.com E: matt...@crocker.com > On Jul 28, 2016, at 2:49 PM, Josh Baird <joshba...@gmail.com> wrote: > > Isn't there a x86 based RE for the MX104 in the works? If so, this should > improve performance/convergence times by quite a bit I would think. > > On Thu, Jul 28, 2016 at 2:34 PM, Matthew Crocker <matt...@corp.crocker.com > <mailto:matt...@corp.crocker.com>> wrote: > > Mike, > > Here is the view of my MX80. This router has a couple full tables and a > bunch of peers through various IXes. I have an MX480 on order to replace > this MX80. I’ll use this a dedicated IX peering router so I won’t have full > tables on my IX border later this year. > > The MX80 has horrific full table convergence (8 minutes +/-). The MX104 is > a bit better. You would need to go to a MX240 with a real RE to get decent > convergence times. > > matthew@MX80> show bgp summary > Groups: 10 Peers: 15 Down peers: 0 > > matthew@MX80> show route summary > Autonomous system number: XXXX > Router ID: A.B.C.D > > inet.0: 614169 destinations, 1807913 routes (614160 active, 10 holddown, 0 > hidden) > Restart Complete > Direct: 7 routes, 7 active > Local: 6 routes, 6 active > OSPF: 511 routes, 508 active > BGP: 1807386 routes, 613636 active > Static: 1 routes, 1 active > LDP: 2 routes, 2 active > > inet6.0: 14443 destinations, 28877 routes (14443 active, 0 holddown, 0 hidden) > Restart Complete > Direct: 6 routes, 4 active > Local: 6 routes, 6 active > BGP: 28865 routes, 14433 active > > > matthew@MX80> show system memory > System memory usage distribution: > Total memory: 2072576 Kbytes (100%) > Reserved memory: 36896 Kbytes ( 1%) > Wired memory: 302092 Kbytes ( 14%) > Active memory: 1399432 Kbytes ( 67%) > Inactive memory: 120000 Kbytes ( 5%) > Cache memory: 69720 Kbytes ( 3%) > Free memory: 143680 Kbytes ( 6%) > Memory disk resident memory: 349640 Kbytes > VM-Kbytes( % ) Resident( % ) Map-name > 913972(87.16) 343424(16.56) kernel > > matthew@MX80> show system processes summary > last pid: 34226; load averages: 0.24, 0.31, 0.23 up 477+00:51:09 > 18:31:50 > 142 processes: 4 running, 110 sleeping, 28 waiting > > Mem: 1367M Active, 117M Inact, 295M Wired, 68M Cache, 112M Buf, 140M Free > Swap: 2915M Total, 2915M Free > > > — > > Matthew Crocker > President - Crocker Communications, Inc. > Managing Partner - Crocker Telecommunications, LLC > E: matt...@corp.crocker.com <mailto:matt...@corp.crocker.com> > E: matt...@crocker.com <mailto:matt...@crocker.com> > > > > On Jul 28, 2016, at 12:09 PM, Mike <mike+j...@willitsonline.com > > <mailto:mike%2bj...@willitsonline.com>> wrote: > > > > On 07/28/2016 12:50 AM, Adam Vitkovsky wrote: > >> > >> And on how effective is the NPU's lookup process, that is how effective is > >> the actual lookup algorithm with CPU cycles and memory accesses, some NPUs > >> can even offload complex lookup tasks to a specialized chip. > >> > > > > I appreciate your presence on other forums, but I'm pretty sure nobody here > > needs a basic explanation of how modern router platforms work. If you > > missed it, the question was specifically about juniper and bang for the > > buck and routing bgp on 10g and filtering. > > > > Some folks helpfully suggested using strategies to to decrease the required > > size of the FIB, potentially meaning a lower box could do that job. That > > has some merit, as the OP was right in that for this job I don't really > > care about timbuktu more as whats 'close' to my two ip transit providers. I > > know nothing of juniper and I'm just wondering if MX80 is enough box for > > this or if I need to go higher up in the food chain. The one iptransit > > provider at my 'A' location appears to originate about 20 networks from > > various netblocks and this would be easy to statically enter into config > > while accepting defaults from both, achieving the same net result. > > > > Mike- > > _______________________________________________ > > juniper-nsp mailing list juniper-nsp@puck.nether.net > > <mailto:juniper-nsp@puck.nether.net> > > https://puck.nether.net/mailman/listinfo/juniper-nsp > > <https://puck.nether.net/mailman/listinfo/juniper-nsp> > > > > > _______________________________________________ > juniper-nsp mailing list juniper-nsp@puck.nether.net > <mailto:juniper-nsp@puck.nether.net> > https://puck.nether.net/mailman/listinfo/juniper-nsp > <https://puck.nether.net/mailman/listinfo/juniper-nsp> _______________________________________________ juniper-nsp mailing list juniper-nsp@puck.nether.net https://puck.nether.net/mailman/listinfo/juniper-nsp
