I posit that a number of cloud environments are either DIY (meaning unlikely to forward serious traffic), or were installed by a vendor (meaning they were pricey, and as such, went in with limited forwarding capacity).
To do stuff in CPU and memory should not be an issue - but I doubt that many cloud environments have been setup to replicate what a router/switch forwarding 100Gbps or more can do. Of course, I could be wrong. In our case, we are looking at small scale, i.e., 5Gbps - 10Gbps of traffic at peak per chassis. Mostly for value-added bits, and not part of our core networking infrastructure. The numbers stop making sense for our use-case once we start to go beyond that capacity on x86 boxes. Mark. On 21/Apr/18 21:59, Aaron Gould wrote: > But I guess in a situation where you already have a data center or virtual > environment like what is being talked about, and you simply add in vMX for > vRR or vCGNat, then perhaps that makes it more bearable > > Btw, can you actually emulate the MS-MIC-16G/MS-MPC-128G hardware cgnat > functions on vMX ?! > > - Aaron > > > -----Original Message----- > From: juniper-nsp [mailto:juniper-nsp-boun...@puck.nether.net] On Behalf Of > Mark Tinka > Sent: Saturday, April 21, 2018 6:36 AM > To: Saku Ytti; Mike > Cc: juniper-nsp@puck.nether.net > Subject: Re: [j-nsp] Cost of vMX > > > > On 21/Apr/18 02:19, Saku Ytti wrote: > >> >From BOM POV if you have to pay for the XEONs it probably isn't very >> good value proposal per Mpps. However if you have poor pricing for MX, >> good pricing on your XEON and modest pps need, maybe it makes sense. > This... > > Looking at virtual routers - even from other vendors - what quickly > stands out for me is that if your traffic volumes are typically low, but > you get value in things such as being able to host a ton of customers on > the same chassis/VM, hold millions of routes for several years without > worrying about hardware resources (in the case of RR's), need to crunch > numbers very quickly in CPU (in the case of a virtualized Netflow > collector such as Arbor), then it makes very good sense. > > If you're trying to forward 10's of Gbps through a virtual router on > general-purpose x86 hardware at any meaningful scale, you're quickly > going to see all your money go into: > > - The server hardware > - The hypervisor license > - The VM license > > Doesn't make for a good prospect, if I'm honest, with today's > state-of-the-art. > > While you could build a virtual router capable of forwarding 100Gbps > aggregate, it's going to be cheaper for you to work with a purpose-built > router/switch. > > Mark. > _______________________________________________ > juniper-nsp mailing list juniper-nsp@puck.nether.net > 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