Brad, Did you ever get the numbers for the MX480?
On Fri, Dec 5, 2014 at 3:10 PM, Brad Fleming <bdfle...@gmail.com> wrote: > We haven’t received the MX480 gear yet (POs just went in about a week > ago). But we tested MX960s with the same RE-S-1800x4 w/ 16GB RAM RIB+FIB > convergence time was roughly 45sec. We never worried about getting a super > accurate time for the MX960 because even an “eye test” showed it was fast > enough for our application and we were much more concerned with other parts > of the box. Also, we had inline-flow reporting configured on the MX960. > Actually, the MX960’s had a full, production-ready config while the MX104 > was tested with a stripped down after we discovered the slow convergence. > > Once we get some MX480s on the bench I’ll report back. > > > > On Dec 5, 2014, at 2:35 PM, Shawn Hsiao <phs...@tripadvisor.com> wrote: > > > > > > MX480 is also not instantaneous, so the same problem applies. Brad, do > you have the number for MX480 for comparison? > > > > What we decided was, given both models suffer the same problems, just > different duration, we decided to mitigate the problem and not spending the > money. > > > > Thanks. > > > > > > > > On Dec 5, 2014, at 3:01 PM, Brad Fleming <bdfle...@gmail.com> wrote: > > > >> Then you should look for something other then the MX104. > >> > >> In our testing an MX104 running Junos 13.3R4 with a single, full feed > took about 4min 25sec to (1) converge the RIB from a router sitting 0.5ms > RTT away and (2) update the FIB with all entries. This performance was > observed with single RE and dual RE and without any excess services > running. If we added inline-flow sampling to the device full convergence > took closer to 5min 45sec in our lab. Efforts to bring the convergence time > down (without filtering ingress advertisements) with the assistance of JTAC > proved unsuccessful. > >> > >> We decided to “bite the bullet” and procure MX480s instead but > obviously that’s not possible for everyone. If the MX480 is out of the > question a Brocade CER Premium is an option. We have 3 in production and > see very attractive convergence times; however, they have a more limited > feature set and you’ll want to understand how their FIB memory scales. > Apologies, I don’t know the Cisco equivalent from the ASR line these days > but I’m sure others on the list could help out. > >> > >> > >>> On Dec 5, 2014, at 11:45 AM, Graham Johnston <johnst...@westmancom.com> > wrote: > >>> > >>> Shawn, > >>> > >>> It's more about FIB than RIB as I am concerned about the time it takes > until MPCs have updated route information after large scale changes in > routes learned via BGP. > >>> > >>> Graham Johnston > >>> Network Planner > >>> Westman Communications Group > >>> 204.717.2829 > >>> johnst...@westmancom.com > >>> think green; don't print this email. > >>> > >>> -----Original Message----- > >>> From: Shawn Hsiao [mailto:phs...@tripadvisor.com] > >>> Sent: Friday, December 05, 2014 11:30 AM > >>> To: Graham Johnston > >>> Cc: nanog@nanog.org > >>> Subject: Re: Juniper MX Sizing > >>> > >>> > >>> Is your sizing concern just for the RIB, or also for FIB to sync up? > The latter was a problem for us, but not the former. We also have > inline-jflow turned on and that is still a work-in-progress in terms of > impacting performance. > >>> > >>> We are using MX104 for similar purposes for many months now, and with > some tweaks in our procedures and configurations we found it to be > acceptable. MX104 may not be able to process routes as fast as MX480, > but MX480 is also not instantaneous either so similar risks exist. > >>> > >>> > >>> > >>> On Dec 5, 2014, at 11:59 AM, Graham Johnston <johnst...@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. > >>>> > >>>> 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 > >>>> johnst...@westmancom.com<mailto:johnst...@westmancom.com> > >>>> P think green; don't print this email. > >>>> > >>> > >> > > > >