David,
Thanks for pointing that out, I did read that and understand the available
options/limitations between the 10G/40G interfaces. :)
Scott H
> On Nov 1, 2017, at 11:34 AM, Hunter, David B. wrote:
>
> Scott,
>
> Just FYI, you may already be aware of this, but there was
Scott,
Just FYI, you may already be aware of this, but there was one limitation with
the MPC5E that we ran into. We use the MPC5E-40G10G, which are working fine in
our data center for 40Gbs service. I think the EQ version is the same in
regards to the limitation we discovered. At the time
Worth to note that XL-based PFEs have much more SRAM and are capable to
hold like ~10M IPv4 LPM records in the FIB in contrast to ~2.4M for LU
(I've never reached the limit, so these numbers are rather what I've read /
been told here and there). And, of course, if you have both LU and XL-based
Pavel,
Thank you for the detailed comments, this is basically what I understood to be
the case. I’m running MPC3 NG EQs right now which as you note is the same as
the MPC5, we haven’t had any issues so it sounds like the MPC5E should achieve
what we need and operate as we expect.
Scott H
There were two versions of MPC3:
1. MPC3 non-NG, which has a single XM buffer manager and four LU chips (the
old good ~65 Mpps LUs as in "classic" MPC1/2/16XGE old trio PFEs).
2. MPC3-NG which is based on exactly the same chipset as MPC5, based on
XM+XL.
MPC4 is much like MPC3 non-NG though it
Adam,
I thought that the MPC3E and MPC5E had the same generation Trio w/ XL and XQ
chips? Just the MPC5E has two XM chips.
Scott H
> On Nov 1, 2017, at 10:28 AM,
> wrote:
>
>> Scott Harvanek
>> Sent: Tuesday, October 31, 2017
> Scott Harvanek
> Sent: Tuesday, October 31, 2017 6:57 PM
>
> Hey folks,
>
> We have some MX480s we need to add queuing capable 10G/40G ports to
> and it looks like MPC5EQ-40G10G is going to be our most cost effective
> solution. Has anyone run into any limitations with these MPCs that aren’t
7 matches
Mail list logo