Re: [j-nsp] ASR1002 Comparitive

2009-11-18 Thread Florian Weimer
* Roland Dobbins: The issue with this software-based router won't be NetFlow; it'll be throughput, as you indicated, along with resiliency to attack. Not really, forwarding 200 to 300 Mbps of attack traffic (or more) is not a problem anymore. The day of public-facing software-based routers

Re: [j-nsp] ASR1002 Comparitive

2009-11-18 Thread Mark Tinka
On Wednesday 18 November 2009 11:58:53 am Bill Blackford wrote: I believe the M7i is the closest one 2 one comparison. The performance numbers are almost exact and depending on your supplier should be competitively priced with an ASR1002. This is where/when I think Juniper need to re-invent

Re: [j-nsp] ASR1002 Comparitive

2009-11-18 Thread Dobbins, Roland
On Nov 18, 2009, at 2:58 PM, Florian Weimer wrote: Not really, forwarding 200 to 300 Mbps of attack traffic (or more) is not a problem anymore. My experience differs, and has for quite some time. It's really the pps and flows which are the killer. That's like saying that the day of links

Re: [j-nsp] ASR1002 Comparitive

2009-11-18 Thread Dobbins, Roland
On Nov 18, 2009, at 3:01 PM, Mark Tinka wrote: The M7i's/M10i's are finding it very hard to play in this space, anymore. These boxes were eating Cisco's lunch in this space for quite some time, until Cisco finally came out with the ASR as a reaction to the Mxi boxes. It's probably just

Re: [j-nsp] ASR1002 Comparitive

2009-11-18 Thread Kris Amy
The plot thickens, With sampling set to 1/100. The box is nominally at 50%. However whenever we commit a config the box jumps to 100% cpu for approx 10 minutes. We started seeing this when I brought up 1 full bgp peer. My Partner has an open case with JTAC for this and will let you know the

Re: [j-nsp] ASR1002 Comparitive

2009-11-18 Thread Kris Amy
This is an SRX240H running 10.0 Regards, Kris On 18/11/09 8:55 PM, Mark Tinka mti...@globaltransit.net wrote: On Wednesday 18 November 2009 06:48:17 pm Kris Amy wrote: The plot thickens, With sampling set to 1/100. The box is nominally at 50%. However whenever we commit a config the

Re: [j-nsp] ASR1002 Comparitive

2009-11-18 Thread Keegan.Holley
I think it depends on the application. For example the Juniper still has higher port density via support for more multiport SONET interfaces. Also, I could be wrong but I don't believe the ASR 1002 supports 10G. I think the ASR1002 is made for an application that people usually choose cisco

Re: [j-nsp] ASR1002 Comparitive

2009-11-18 Thread Steve Steiner
On Wed, Nov 18, 2009 at 3:01 AM, Mark Tinka mti...@globaltransit.netwrote: On Wednesday 18 November 2009 11:58:53 am Bill Blackford wrote: I believe the M7i is the closest one 2 one comparison. The performance numbers are almost exact and depending on your supplier should be

Re: [j-nsp] ASR1002 Comparitive

2009-11-18 Thread Bill Blackford
Even with an NPE-G2, the 7206VXR is a software router and falls over at about 200k PPS (YMMV). The M7i and ASR1k are true line rate hardware routers and can do several million PPS before showing performance degradation. I would compare the 7206VXR to a J6350. -b -Original Message-

Re: [j-nsp] ASR1002 Comparitive

2009-11-18 Thread Hoogen
I would assume so...SRX240.. is not an equivalent to ASR1002.. On Wed, Nov 18, 2009 at 9:55 AM, Derick Winkworth dwinkwo...@att.netwrote: Wouldn't an SRX-650 be a better choice if your comparing to an ASR1002? From: Kris Amy k...@amy.id.au To:

Re: [j-nsp] ASR1002 Comparitive

2009-11-18 Thread Travers Stark
I have a couple of j2320's with 2gb of ram running 2 feeds + few peering feeds pushing 80-120Mb of traffic with 1:1 netflow. Cpu sometimes hits 70% I think it really depends on your traffic mix Travers -Original Message- From: juniper-nsp-boun...@puck.nether.net

Re: [j-nsp] ASR1002 Comparitive

2009-11-18 Thread Mark Tinka
On Wednesday 18 November 2009 06:48:17 pm Kris Amy wrote: The plot thickens, With sampling set to 1/100. The box is nominally at 50%. However whenever we commit a config the box jumps to 100% cpu for approx 10 minutes. We started seeing this when I brought up 1 full bgp peer. My Partner

Re: [j-nsp] ASR1002 Comparitive

2009-11-18 Thread Chris Kawchuk
Hi, We actually just completed an RFP for: 2-3 eBGP peers (full routes) smattering of iBGP 30k+ routes internal in OSPF Cisco pitched an ASR 1002. Juniper Pitched an SRX650. We went with the SRX650 - Better throughput and about 1/2 the price of the Cisco box. Regards,

Re: [j-nsp] ASR1002 Comparitive

2009-11-18 Thread Mark Tinka
On Wednesday 18 November 2009 08:29:16 pm keegan.hol...@sungard.com wrote: I think it depends on the application. For example the Juniper still has higher port density via support for more multiport SONET interfaces. Ummh... I don't think so. The M7i/M10i will support 4x STM-1/OC-3 ports

Re: [j-nsp] ASR1002 Comparitive

2009-11-18 Thread Mark Tinka
On Wednesday 18 November 2009 10:04:08 pm Steve Steiner wrote: The trend is more and more towards Ethernet. It is, but there are still situations where you can't get Ethernet, particularly on long-haul, transcontinental or transoceanic runs (unless you're happy to forward your core traffic