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
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
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,
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 Part
r-nsp-boun...@puck.nether.net] On Behalf Of Kris Amy
Sent: Wednesday, 18 November 2009 4:42 PM
To: Tommy Perniciaro; juniper-nsp@puck.nether.net
Subject: Re: [j-nsp] ASR1002 Comparitive
I have briefly tested a j2320 before going to an SRX240.
The both the J and the SRX have gone to 100% cpu with 20m
"mti...@globaltransit.net" ; "
> juniper-nsp@puck.nether.net"
> Sent: Wed, November 18, 2009 4:48:17 AM
> Subject: Re: [j-nsp] ASR1002 Comparitive
>
> The plot thickens,
>
> With sampling set to 1/100. The box is nominally at 50%.
>
> However whenever we comm
Wouldn't an SRX-650 be a better choice if your comparing to an ASR1002?
From: Kris Amy
To: "mti...@globaltransit.net" ;
"juniper-nsp@puck.nether.net"
Sent: Wed, November 18, 2009 4:48:17 AM
Subject: Re: [j-nsp] ASR1002 Comparitive
-
From: juniper-nsp-boun...@puck.nether.net
[mailto:juniper-nsp-boun...@puck.nether.net] On Behalf Of
keegan.hol...@sungard.com
Sent: Wednesday, November 18, 2009 4:29 AM
To: mti...@globaltransit.net
Cc: juniper-nsp-boun...@puck.nether.net; juniper-nsp@puck.nether.net
Subject: Re: [j-nsp] ASR1002
On Wed, Nov 18, 2009 at 3:01 AM, Mark Tinka wrote:
> 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
n that you are thinking of going with the cisco. I haven't done
much comparison shopping with the ASR's though. I think the 7206VXR still
does the job and is much cheaper than both the M7i and the ASR1002.
From:
Mark Tinka
To:
juniper-nsp@puck.nether.net
Date:
11/18/2009 03:13 AM
This is an SRX240H running 10.0
Regards,
Kris
On 18/11/09 8:55 PM, "Mark Tinka" 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 box jumps t
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
resul
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 abo
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 link
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-inv
* 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
Ok fair point, locally originated attacks are bad no matter you have some
times.
I'll stop hijacking this thread and let the OP get on with their choice :)
On Wed, Nov 18, 2009 at 6:40 PM, Dobbins, Roland wrote:
>
> On Nov 18, 2009, at 2:38 PM, Ben Steele wrote:
>
> > any attack > 100Mbs is goi
On Nov 18, 2009, at 2:38 PM, Ben Steele wrote:
> any attack > 100Mbs is going to be dropped(tail-drop/rate-limit whatever
> method the ISP implements) before it even makes it to the poor software-based
> router and given the almost 300Mbs @ 64-byte spec I don't think it would have
> a problem
While I agree with your comment I don't feel it is entirely true, neither us
know where this router is to be placed on the network or its full duties, we
just know it needs enough memory for a couple of full tables and can do up
to 300Mb/s with non-sampled netflow via ethernet interfaces.
Even as
* Kris Amy:
> My requirements are fairly simple.
>
> 2-3 full BGP tables
> 120-300 MB of traffic
> Ethernet only
> Netflow with 1:1 sampling
You could easily use a PC for that. 8-/
> The both the J and the SRX have gone to 100% cpu with 20meg of traffic and
> 1:1 netflow.
We saw that as well, b
On Nov 18, 2009, at 1:14 PM, Ben Steele wrote:
> I can't see it having a problem with non-sampled netflow but if you are
> really worried about that
> just ask your local SE when you purchase, is there a specific timer you need
> to run on your netflow to have such an issue with it?
The issue
t;>> competitively priced
> >>> with an ASR1002.
> >>>
> >>> J-care on it seems higher than smartnet if you can believe that.
> >>>
> >>> -b
> >>>
> >>>
> >>>
> >>>
> >>>
&
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> -Original Message-
>>> From: juniper-nsp-boun...@puck.nether.net
>>> [mailto:juniper-nsp-boun...@puck.nether.net] On Behalf Of Kris Amy
>>> Sent: Tues
My requirements are fairly simple.
2-3 full BGP tables
120-300 MB of traffic
Ethernet only
Netflow with 1:1 sampling
Regards,
Kris
On 18/11/09 1:18 PM, "Tommy Perniciaro" wrote:
> Depends on what your requirements are, any oc3? Or just Ethernet ?
>
> Sent from my iPhone
>
> On Nov 17, 2009,
-nsp-boun...@puck.nether.net
> [mailto:juniper-nsp-boun...@puck.nether.net] On Behalf Of Kris Amy
> Sent: Tuesday, November 17, 2009 5:59 PM
> To: juniper-nsp@puck.nether.net
> Subject: [j-nsp] ASR1002 Comparitive
>
> Hi All,
>
> I'm just wondering what the J equivalent of a ASR10
-boun...@puck.nether.net
[mailto:juniper-nsp-boun...@puck.nether.net] On Behalf Of Kris Amy
Sent: Tuesday, November 17, 2009 5:59 PM
To: juniper-nsp@puck.nether.net
Subject: [j-nsp] ASR1002 Comparitive
Hi All,
I'm just wondering what the J equivalent of a ASR1002 is?
It seems an SRX240 i
Hi All,
I’m just wondering what the J equivalent of a ASR1002 is?
It seems an SRX240 is way under powered and an M7i quite a fair bit more
expensive.
Regards,
Kris
___
juniper-nsp mailing list juniper-nsp@puck.nether.net
https://puck.nether.net/mailma
27 matches
Mail list logo
