Now what i know about VDX it does not do single forwarding table lookup to
decide the egress node.
Regards
Abhijeet.C
From: Stefan Fouant sfou...@shortestpathfirst.net
To: Chris Evans chrisccnpsp...@gmail.com; Keegan Holley
keegan.hol...@sungard.com
Cc: juniper-nsp
I agree, forwarding table lookups have been done in CAM/TCAM for years now.
No one is really complaining about the speed of the current technology.
Also, infiniband would be more useful than ethernet with lower latency.
On Thu, Feb 24, 2011 at 10:03 AM, Stefan Fouant
On Thu, Feb 24, 2011 at 10:03:30AM -0500, Stefan Fouant wrote:
No offense, but you are dead wrong on this issue. I come in contact
with organizations every single day who have mission critical data
requirements and latency is a VERY big requirement for many of these
organizations. And
A lot of our customers require low latency: financial, higher education, HPC
environments and utility.
Juniper has taken the time to solve more than just the low latency problem.
We're trying to solve larger problems such as how do you manage an entire
campus or data center as one logical
On 02/24/11 12:24, Chris Evans wrote:
Yeah and that's great. As 90% of the installs are still gige copper where
is that offering? :)
On Feb 24, 2011 12:17 PM, Doug Hanks dha...@juniper.net wrote:
A lot of our customers require low latency: financial, higher education,
HPC environments and
Hello,
has anyone had an Intel PXE booter work with a stanza like so:
94.228.69.77 (untrust zone tftp server)
94.228.69.144 (trust zone Dell PC)
char...@fw0.rst# top show system services dhcp static-binding 00:13:20:d4:b9:3f
fixed-address {
94.228.69.144;
}
boot-file pxelinux.0;
In my tests I have seen as much as a 30% drop in Windows file sharing
performance with 2 ms of latency vs 1ms. This was in a large radiology
application. Applications like FTP work without any issues. Some applications
are more sensitive(SMB). Low latency to me is measure in microseconds not
This isn't designed to be placed as an aggregated PE device. I would
definitely say use an MX in this situation ;)
From: Keegan Holley [mailto:keegan.hol...@sungard.com]
Sent: Thursday, February 24, 2011 9:56 AM
To: Doug Hanks
Cc: Chris Evans; Juniper-Nsp List
Subject: Re: [j-nsp] Qfabric
The
Once upon a time, Charlie Allom char...@playlouder.com said:
Hello,
has anyone had an Intel PXE booter work with a stanza like so:
94.228.69.77 (untrust zone tftp server)
94.228.69.144 (trust zone Dell PC)
char...@fw0.rst# top show system services dhcp static-binding
00:13:20:d4:b9:3f
Not an option. Deeply integrated into MS stack. This vendor had a mini-web
based version that performed better then the thick client due to using HTTP.
From: Keegan Holley [mailto:keegan.hol...@sungard.com]
Sent: Thursday, February 24, 2011 12:44 PM
To: Jensen Tyler
Cc: Jeff Cadwallader; Doug
I don't know what hardware you are using but even our older gear isn't much
higher than 20micros per hop.. within the DC even old gear is fine for
smb..
On Feb 24, 2011 1:11 PM, Jensen Tyler jty...@fiberutilities.com wrote:
In my tests I have seen as much as a 30% drop in Windows file sharing
This test was over our Private Fiber WAN. Data center was a 150-200 miles from
Hospital. The gear we were using has less than 4us per hop.
Was also able to replicate this in the lab using the linux network emulation
software.
The end user in this example is a doctor waiting to look at an
Sounds like the bandwidth-delay product really hampered SMB.
From: Jensen Tyler [mailto:jty...@fiberutilities.com]
Sent: Thursday, February 24, 2011 11:31 AM
To: Chris Evans
Cc: Juniper-Nsp List; Doug Hanks; Jeff Cadwallader
Subject: RE: [j-nsp] Qfabric
This test was over our Private Fiber WAN.
Hi Tore,
Can't speak on the EX4500s as I've not had the chance to worked with them.
No experience on the EX4500s
On Thu, Feb 24, 2011 at 8:44 AM, Tore Anderson
tore.ander...@redpill-linpro.com wrote:
* Rafael Rodriguez
software upgrades on EX4200 VCs are NOT hitless - the whole VC is
On Thu, Feb 24, 2011 at 10:55:10AM -0500, Jared Mauch wrote:
I heard about someone building a microwave link btw CHI and NYC due to
the lower latency compared to fiber and technology that they are able
to attain. This is valuable for the high frequency traders, which
while they operate
Also integrated L2/L3 forwarding so that you don't hairpin traffic through a
node where the L2/L3 pieces meet (like VPLS to a node where the IRB interface
is..)
From: Doug Hanks dha...@juniper.net
To: Chris Evans chrisccnpsp...@gmail.com; Stefan Fouant
I honestly wonder how many caveats there is going to be. Everything sounds
great on paper from every vendor
On Feb 24, 2011 5:28 PM, Derick Winkworth dwinkwo...@att.net wrote:
Also integrated L2/L3 forwarding so that you don't hairpin traffic through
a
node where the L2/L3 pieces meet (like
On 2/24/11 2:31 PM, Saku Ytti wrote:
On (2011-02-24 14:59 -0600), Richard A Steenbergen wrote:
latency in and of itself, just that you are better than the other guy
so you can out-trade him). When it comes to microseconds of latency in
the forwarding plane of a switch/router, I'm far less
This sounds more like a configuration problem than a latency problem.
Windows Vista/2008 and higher will auto-tune TCP window size to take advantage
of available bandwidth, even if the latency creeps up. (So will all other
modern operating systems at this point)
You can always manually
19 matches
Mail list logo
