Re: [j-nsp] Juniper vMX limitations

[William Johansson]

Hi

Yes I have it running on Centos, using virsh for vm management.
Let me know if you need any pointers.

//
William


> 1 aug 2015 kl. 18:13 skrev Chris Woodfield :
> 
> Has anyone gotten VMX running on a non-Ubuntu KVM machine (ex. RHEL/CentOS)?
> 
> -C
> 
>> On Jul 30, 2015, at 6:11 AM, Chris Adams  wrote:
>> 
>> Once upon a time, Phil Bedard  said:
>>> I’m sure they’ve had it running in VMWare, but it’s a little more difficult 
>>> and you need the Enterprise Plus version of vSphere to get virtual serial 
>>> ports. I’d be more comfortable running it under KVM myself.   
>> 
>> Just an FYI: if you are looking for a KVM-based virtualization setup
>> that has more of the functionality of VMWare (not just CLI-based local
>> VMs), check out oVirt .
>> -- 
>> Chris Adams 
>> ___
>> 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
___
juniper-nsp mailing list juniper-nsp@puck.nether.net
https://puck.nether.net/mailman/listinfo/juniper-nsp

Re: [j-nsp] Juniper vMX limitations

[Chris Woodfield]

Has anyone gotten VMX running on a non-Ubuntu KVM machine (ex. RHEL/CentOS)?

-C

> On Jul 30, 2015, at 6:11 AM, Chris Adams  wrote:
> 
> Once upon a time, Phil Bedard  said:
>> I’m sure they’ve had it running in VMWare, but it’s a little more difficult 
>> and you need the Enterprise Plus version of vSphere to get virtual serial 
>> ports. I’d be more comfortable running it under KVM myself.   
> 
> Just an FYI: if you are looking for a KVM-based virtualization setup
> that has more of the functionality of VMWare (not just CLI-based local
> VMs), check out oVirt .
> -- 
> Chris Adams 
> ___
> 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

Re: [j-nsp] Juniper vMX limitations

[Ben Dale]

> On 30 Jul 2015, at 11:11 pm, Chris Adams  wrote:
> 
> Once upon a time, Phil Bedard  said:
>> I’m sure they’ve had it running in VMWare, but it’s a little more difficult 
>> and you need the Enterprise Plus version of vSphere to get virtual serial 
>> ports. I’d be more comfortable running it under KVM myself.   
> 
> Just an FYI: if you are looking for a KVM-based virtualization setup
> that has more of the functionality of VMWare (not just CLI-based local
> VMs), check out oVirt .

And similarly ProxMox -  - I haven’t 
tried vMX on it yet, but it’s a pretty nice ESX replacement for general purpose 
use


> -- 
> Chris Adams 
> ___
> 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

Re: [j-nsp] Juniper vMX limitations

[Chris Adams]

Once upon a time, Phil Bedard  said:
> I’m sure they’ve had it running in VMWare, but it’s a little more difficult 
> and you need the Enterprise Plus version of vSphere to get virtual serial 
> ports. I’d be more comfortable running it under KVM myself.   

Just an FYI: if you are looking for a KVM-based virtualization setup
that has more of the functionality of VMWare (not just CLI-based local
VMs), check out oVirt .
-- 
Chris Adams 
___
juniper-nsp mailing list juniper-nsp@puck.nether.net
https://puck.nether.net/mailman/listinfo/juniper-nsp

Re: [j-nsp] Juniper vMX limitations

[Mark Tinka]

On 30/Jul/15 11:39, David Blundell wrote:
> Hi Robert,
>
> We've got a few use cases for the vMX products:
>
> 1/ Virtual RR
> 2/ Test driven development with vmx, opencontrail and jenkins
> 3/ Edge routing for small compute clusters that need < 500Mbps internet 
> bandwidth
> 4/ Lab testing of designs

Seems like a typical use-case.

Mark.
___
juniper-nsp mailing list juniper-nsp@puck.nether.net
https://puck.nether.net/mailman/listinfo/juniper-nsp

Re: [j-nsp] Juniper vMX limitations

[Phil Bedard]

The Junos vRR, which has been out for some time and I think is up to 14.2R3, 
isn’t the “vMX.” It’s a virtualized Junos where the forwarding plane is there 
but not built for performnance.  The vRR image works well for doing lab control 
plane testing.
 


The “vMX” uses two VMs with a vPFE running in a separate VM from the 
control-plane. It can use SR-IOV/DPDK with Intel NICs to get to the 80Gbps 
number and also does CPU core pinning to improve performance.  The base license 
does 32K routes in the FIB.  There is an advanced license which will support 
2+M FIB entries from what I remember, premium license adds L3VPN.  There are 
also licenses based on throughput.  


The official vMX is available now, as of July 14th I believe it’s available for 
download, and the initial version is 14.1R5

https://www.juniper.net/support/downloads/?p=vmx#docs

I’m sure they’ve had it running in VMWare, but it’s a little more difficult and 
you need the Enterprise Plus version of vSphere to get virtual serial ports. 
I’d be more comfortable running it under KVM myself.   


Phil 



-Original Message-
From: juniper-nsp on behalf of Josh Baird
Date: Thursday, July 30, 2015 at 07:37
To: David Blundell
Cc: "juniper-nsp@puck.nether.net"
Subject: Re: [j-nsp] Juniper vMX limitations

>I was hoping to use them for edge routing (full IPv4 tables) at POPs with
>total bandwidth <1gbps.  But, I would feel much more comfortable with
>VMWare.  I hope support for VMWare is official soon.  I'm also waiting on
>official (non-list) pricing for the various packages to see if it even
>makes sense.
>
>On Thu, Jul 30, 2015 at 5:39 AM, David Blundell <
>david.blund...@100percentit.com> wrote:
>
>> Hi Robert,
>>
>> We've got a few use cases for the vMX products:
>>
>> 1/ Virtual RR
>> 2/ Test driven development with vmx, opencontrail and jenkins
>> 3/ Edge routing for small compute clusters that need < 500Mbps internet
>> bandwidth
>> 4/ Lab testing of designs
>>
>> > -Original Message-
>> > From: Robert J Huey [mailto:rh...@anzus.com]
>> > Sent: 30 July 2015 05:08
>> > To: David Blundell 
>> > Cc: juniper-nsp@puck.nether.net
>> > Subject: Re: [j-nsp] Juniper vMX limitations
>> >
>> > So what's the use case...  Run this as the local RR?   Or manage routes
>> > between tenants in compute?
>> >
>> > > On Jul 29, 2015, at 9:44 AM, David Blundell
>> >  wrote:
>> > >
>> > > Has anyone testing the vMX software found out its RIB/FIB/L3VPN
>> > limitations?
>>
>> ___
>> 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

___
juniper-nsp mailing list juniper-nsp@puck.nether.net
https://puck.nether.net/mailman/listinfo/juniper-nsp

Re: [j-nsp] Juniper vMX limitations

[Josh Baird]

I was hoping to use them for edge routing (full IPv4 tables) at POPs with
total bandwidth <1gbps.  But, I would feel much more comfortable with
VMWare.  I hope support for VMWare is official soon.  I'm also waiting on
official (non-list) pricing for the various packages to see if it even
makes sense.

On Thu, Jul 30, 2015 at 5:39 AM, David Blundell <
david.blund...@100percentit.com> wrote:

> Hi Robert,
>
> We've got a few use cases for the vMX products:
>
> 1/ Virtual RR
> 2/ Test driven development with vmx, opencontrail and jenkins
> 3/ Edge routing for small compute clusters that need < 500Mbps internet
> bandwidth
> 4/ Lab testing of designs
>
> > -Original Message-
> > From: Robert J Huey [mailto:rh...@anzus.com]
> > Sent: 30 July 2015 05:08
> > To: David Blundell 
> > Cc: juniper-nsp@puck.nether.net
> > Subject: Re: [j-nsp] Juniper vMX limitations
> >
> > So what's the use case...  Run this as the local RR?   Or manage routes
> > between tenants in compute?
> >
> > > On Jul 29, 2015, at 9:44 AM, David Blundell
> >  wrote:
> > >
> > > Has anyone testing the vMX software found out its RIB/FIB/L3VPN
> > limitations?
>
> ___
> 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

Re: [j-nsp] Juniper vMX limitations

[David Blundell]

Hi Robert,

We've got a few use cases for the vMX products:

1/ Virtual RR
2/ Test driven development with vmx, opencontrail and jenkins
3/ Edge routing for small compute clusters that need < 500Mbps internet 
bandwidth
4/ Lab testing of designs

> -Original Message-
> From: Robert J Huey [mailto:rh...@anzus.com]
> Sent: 30 July 2015 05:08
> To: David Blundell 
> Cc: juniper-nsp@puck.nether.net
> Subject: Re: [j-nsp] Juniper vMX limitations
> 
> So what's the use case...  Run this as the local RR?   Or manage routes
> between tenants in compute?
> 
> > On Jul 29, 2015, at 9:44 AM, David Blundell
>  wrote:
> >
> > Has anyone testing the vMX software found out its RIB/FIB/L3VPN
> limitations? 

___
juniper-nsp mailing list juniper-nsp@puck.nether.net
https://puck.nether.net/mailman/listinfo/juniper-nsp

Re: [j-nsp] Juniper vMX limitations

[Santiago Martinez]

Hi, i've seen both KVM and VMWARE version running last week. Kvm version was 
sometimes crashing during boot process while the vmware was really stable.

Regards

Santiago

Sent from my iPhone

> On 29 Jul 2015, at 21:52, Raphael Mazelier  wrote:
> 
> 
> 
> Le 29/07/15 22:13, Josh Baird a écrit :
>> I was first told that vMX would ship with it's own Hypervisor.  Then I heard 
>> it would ship as ESXi images.  Ok, that's fine.
>> 
>> But, alas, I have to install Ubuntu and run it as KVM guests?  This is not 
>> what I was expecting.  I wonder if VMware is on ge roadmap?  Does anyone 
>> know?
> 
> Yes for now the only supported deployment is on top of kvm.
> But when I asked Juniper, they told me that the vmware support is a priority 
> on the roadmap. btw it was possible to run vmx on vmware but it was a bit 
> tricky.
> 
> -- 
> Raphael Mazelier
> ___
> 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

Re: [j-nsp] Juniper vMX limitations

[Robert J Huey]

So what's the use case...  Run this as the local RR?   Or manage routes between 
tenants in compute?  

Sent from my iPhone

> On Jul 29, 2015, at 9:44 AM, David Blundell  
> wrote:
> 
> Has anyone testing the vMX software found out its RIB/FIB/L3VPN limitations?
> 
> The Juniper datasheet at 
> http://www.juniper.net/assets/us/en/local/pdf/datasheets/1000522-en.pdf says 
> the parts VMX-100M to VMX-500M "Includes all features in full scale" which I 
> take to mean they can handle as many routes as will fit in RAM.
> 
> This contradicts other numbers I've heard which gave a limit of 128K RIB/FIB 
> and 50 L3VPN instances.
> 
> Thanks,
> 
> David
> 
> 
> ___
> 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

Re: [j-nsp] Juniper vMX limitations

[Raphael Mazelier]

Le 29/07/15 22:13, Josh Baird a écrit :

I was first told that vMX would ship with it's own Hypervisor.  Then I heard it 
would ship as ESXi images.  Ok, that's fine.

But, alas, I have to install Ubuntu and run it as KVM guests?  This is not what 
I was expecting.  I wonder if VMware is on ge roadmap?  Does anyone know?



Yes for now the only supported deployment is on top of kvm.
But when I asked Juniper, they told me that the vmware support is a 
priority on the roadmap. btw it was possible to run vmx on vmware but it 
was a bit tricky.


--
Raphael Mazelier
___
juniper-nsp mailing list juniper-nsp@puck.nether.net
https://puck.nether.net/mailman/listinfo/juniper-nsp

Re: [j-nsp] Juniper vMX limitations

[Josh Baird]

I was first told that vMX would ship with it's own Hypervisor.  Then I heard it 
would ship as ESXi images.  Ok, that's fine.

But, alas, I have to install Ubuntu and run it as KVM guests?  This is not what 
I was expecting.  I wonder if VMware is on ge roadmap?  Does anyone know?

> On Jul 29, 2015, at 4:03 PM, Raphael Mazelier  wrote:
> 
> 
> 
> Le 29/07/15 19:15, Josh Baird a écrit :
>> I hope the 128k RIB/FIB limitation is not correct.  But who knows.. vMX is
>> essentially vaporware to me at this point.
> 
> Nope this isn't vaporware. I've got plenty of old version and the general 
> beta was released. On unofficial version there is no limitation (except by 
> the ram) of RIB/FIB on version I've tested. On official version if I remember 
> correctly there is a unlimited option. (VMX-PRM-XXX I think). I could be 
> wrong.
> 
> And I still wait for the vmware support.
> 
> -- 
> Raphael Mazelier
> 
> 
> 
> 
> ___
> 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

Re: [j-nsp] Juniper vMX limitations

[Raphael Mazelier]

Le 29/07/15 19:15, Josh Baird a écrit :

I hope the 128k RIB/FIB limitation is not correct.  But who knows.. vMX is
essentially vaporware to me at this point.



Nope this isn't vaporware. I've got plenty of old version and the 
general beta was released. On unofficial version there is no limitation 
(except by the ram) of RIB/FIB on version I've tested. On official 
version if I remember correctly there is a unlimited option. 
(VMX-PRM-XXX I think). I could be wrong.


And I still wait for the vmware support.

--
Raphael Mazelier




___
juniper-nsp mailing list juniper-nsp@puck.nether.net
https://puck.nether.net/mailman/listinfo/juniper-nsp

Re: [j-nsp] Juniper vMX limitations

[Josh Baird]

I hope the 128k RIB/FIB limitation is not correct.  But who knows.. vMX is
essentially vaporware to me at this point.

On Wed, Jul 29, 2015 at 12:44 PM, David Blundell <
david.blund...@100percentit.com> wrote:

> Has anyone testing the vMX software found out its RIB/FIB/L3VPN
> limitations?
>
> The Juniper datasheet at
> http://www.juniper.net/assets/us/en/local/pdf/datasheets/1000522-en.pdf
> says the parts VMX-100M to VMX-500M "Includes all features in full scale"
> which I take to mean they can handle as many routes as will fit in RAM.
>
> This contradicts other numbers I've heard which gave a limit of 128K
> RIB/FIB and 50 L3VPN instances.
>
> Thanks,
>
> David
>
>
> ___
> 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

[j-nsp] Juniper vMX limitations

[David Blundell]

Has anyone testing the vMX software found out its RIB/FIB/L3VPN limitations?

The Juniper datasheet at 
http://www.juniper.net/assets/us/en/local/pdf/datasheets/1000522-en.pdf says 
the parts VMX-100M to VMX-500M "Includes all features in full scale" which I 
take to mean they can handle as many routes as will fit in RAM.

This contradicts other numbers I've heard which gave a limit of 128K RIB/FIB 
and 50 L3VPN instances.

Thanks,

David


___
juniper-nsp mailing list juniper-nsp@puck.nether.net
https://puck.nether.net/mailman/listinfo/juniper-nsp