> Of Aaron Gould
> Sent: Friday, June 22, 2018 3:46 PM
>
> Hi Mike, I would like to hear from others about anything that might be
built
> into Junos regarding intrusion or ddos types of traffic handling... (I do
see
> ddos mentioned in cli shown below) since I too will soon have at least 2
and
> m
> Of David Sinn
> Sent: Tuesday, June 26, 2018 8:38 PM
> To: Payam Chychi
> Cc: juniper-nsp@puck.nether.net; bell...@nsc.liu.se
> Subject: Re: [j-nsp] Spine & leaf
>
> Highly doubt that the network you reference is lager then the ones I'm
> referring to. OSPF scales well to many multiples of 1000
> Of David Sinn
> Sent: Wednesday, June 27, 2018 7:55 PM
>
>
> > On Jun 27, 2018, at 8:40 AM, Thomas Bellman wrote:
> >
> > On 2018-06-26 21:38, David Sinn wrote:
> >
> >> OSPF scales well to many multiples of 1000's of devices.
> >
> > Is that true even for Clos (spine & leaf) networks, and in
> On Jun 27, 2018, at 8:40 AM, Thomas Bellman wrote:
>
> On 2018-06-26 21:38, David Sinn wrote:
>
>> OSPF scales well to many multiples of 1000's of devices.
>
> Is that true even for Clos (spine & leaf) networks, and in a single area?
Yes for multi-tiered Clos, as that was the original ask
On 27/Jun/18 20:24, Josh Richesin wrote:
> What are people using now days for core routers with about 100 BGP sessions
> with about 10 of them being full routes? We have an MX104 that is actually
> doing it, however people are having issues and that is scaring me a bit. We
> are looking a
What are people using now days for core routers with about 100 BGP sessions
with about 10 of them being full routes? We have an MX104 that is actually
doing it, however people are having issues and that is scaring me a bit. We
are looking at upgrading it to 10G, but the cost is crazy as well.
On 27/Jun/18 16:23, Gert Doering wrote:
> How much throughput do you need?
>
> MX150 might be an alternative... "no (real) forwarding hardware, but
> fast CPU and lots of RAM"
In my mind, the MX150 is really the ideal scalable RR from Juniper for
folk that don't want to mess around building it
On 27/Jun/18 16:23, Gert Doering wrote:
> How much throughput do you need?
>
> MX150 might be an alternative... "no (real) forwarding hardware, but
> fast CPU and lots of RAM"
In my mind, the MX150 is really the ideal scalable RR from Juniper for
folk that don't want to mess around building it
Not much at all 250 mbit.
On Wed, Jun 27, 2018 at 10:23 AM, Gert Doering wrote:
> Hi,
>
> On Wed, Jun 27, 2018 at 09:10:37AM -0400, Dovid Bender wrote:
> > I was told that convergence time on the MX5 would be horrible so we never
> > tried full routes. I am wondering what's the "lowest" model t
On 27/Jun/18 17:15, Rob Foehl wrote:
>
> Any thoughts on MX204s replacing ancient MX240s, assuming one can make
> the interface mix work?
>
> I'm looking at the replacement option vs. in-place upgrades of a mixed
> bag of old RE/SCB/DPC/MPC parts... Seems like an obvious win in cases
> with onl
On 27/Jun/18 15:51, Chris Adams wrote:
> Yep. The RE VM "only" gets half the resources (so 4 cores and 16G RAM),
> but that is plenty good! It also has dual NVMe SSDs for storage. When
> I upgraded JUNOS from 17.4 to 18.1, I think it only took about 3 minutes
> from "request system reboot" u
On 2018-06-26 21:38, David Sinn wrote:
> OSPF scales well to many multiples of 1000's of devices.
Is that true even for Clos (spine & leaf) networks, and in a single area?
My understanding, solely based on what others have told me, is that
the flooding of LSAs in a Clos network can start to over
On 6/27/18 8:42 AM, Tom Beecher wrote:
> Can confirm convergence time on the MX80 with even a single full table
> session is extremely painful, and essentially not functional in a
> production environment.
>
>
> On Wed, Jun 27, 2018 at 7:10 AM, Dovid Bender wrote:
>
>> Hi All,
>>
>> In my 9-5 I
On Wed, 27 Jun 2018, Mark Tinka wrote:
At this stage, I'd say the cheapest MX router you should go for that is
decent is the MX204.
Any thoughts on MX204s replacing ancient MX240s, assuming one can make the
interface mix work?
I'm looking at the replacement option vs. in-place upgrades of a
Can confirm convergence time on the MX80 with even a single full table
session is extremely painful, and essentially not functional in a
production environment.
On Wed, Jun 27, 2018 at 7:10 AM, Dovid Bender wrote:
> Hi All,
>
> In my 9-5 I work for an ITSP where we have two MX5's with
> - iBGP
Hi,
On Wed, Jun 27, 2018 at 09:10:37AM -0400, Dovid Bender wrote:
> I was told that convergence time on the MX5 would be horrible so we never
> tried full routes. I am wondering what's the "lowest" model that can
> support full routes without having an issue re-sorting the routes.
How much throug
I think the PFE ukern runs as a process in the hypervisor that uses another
core and a few G of ram:
PID USER PR NI VIRT RES SHR S %CPU %MEMTIME+ COMMAND
4479 root 20 0 16.7g 16g 26m S 500 53.0 114757:25 qemu-system-x86
21332 root 20 0 3008m 263m 215m R 135 0.8
So the rest is for guest VMs then?
> On Jun 27, 2018, at 9:57 AM, Tim Jackson wrote:
>
> Yeah 16G for the RE + I think you actually get 5 cores in the Junos VM:
>
> % sysctl -a | egrep -i 'hw.machine|hw.model|hw.ncpu'
> hw.machine: amd64
> hw.model: QEMU Virtual CPU version 1.7.2
> hw.ncpu: 5
>
Yeah 16G for the RE + I think you actually get 5 cores in the Junos VM:
% sysctl -a | egrep -i 'hw.machine|hw.model|hw.ncpu'
hw.machine: amd64
hw.model: QEMU Virtual CPU version 1.7.2
hw.ncpu: 5
hw.machine_arch: amd64
It's really fast though. Great little box so far.
--
Tim
On Wed, Jun 27, 201
Once upon a time, Tim Jackson said:
> Yes. Calling it decent is an understatement. It's really quick. It's a Xeon
> E5-2608Lv4.
Yep. The RE VM "only" gets half the resources (so 4 cores and 16G RAM),
but that is plenty good! It also has dual NVMe SSDs for storage. When
I upgraded JUNOS from 17
Yes. Calling it decent is an understatement. It's really quick. It's a Xeon
E5-2608Lv4.
On Wed, Jun 27, 2018 at 8:31 AM, Jason Lixfeld
wrote:
>
>
> > On Jun 27, 2018, at 9:18 AM, Mark Tinka wrote:
> >
> > At this stage, I'd say the cheapest MX router you should go for that is
> > decent is the
On 27/Jun/18 15:31, Jason Lixfeld wrote:
> Isn’t the MX204 RE more than decent? 8 core 1.6Ghz, 32GB DDR4 RE sounds like
> decent is an understatement, no?.
You have to play a little hard to get :-)...
Mark.
___
juniper-nsp mailing list juniper-nsp@p
> On Jun 27, 2018, at 9:18 AM, Mark Tinka wrote:
>
> At this stage, I'd say the cheapest MX router you should go for that is
> decent is the MX204.
Isn’t the MX204 RE more than decent? 8 core 1.6Ghz, 32GB DDR4 RE sounds like
decent is an understatement, no?
__
On 27/Jun/18 15:10, Dovid Bender wrote:
> Hi All,
>
> In my 9-5 I work for an ITSP where we have two MX5's with
> - iBGP
> - two up steams with two BGP sessions each (one per routes)
> - one upstream with one bgp session
> - one bgp session where we get minimal routes (maybe 15 total)
>
> I was
Hi All,
In my 9-5 I work for an ITSP where we have two MX5's with
- iBGP
- two up steams with two BGP sessions each (one per routes)
- one upstream with one bgp session
- one bgp session where we get minimal routes (maybe 15 total)
I was told that convergence time on the MX5 would be horrible so
25 matches
Mail list logo
