, 2013 9:01 AM
To: juniper-nsp Puck
Subject: Re: [j-nsp] Advice on a 100Gbps+ environment
On Jul 2, 2013, at 7:19 PM, Mark Tinka wrote:
Says who?
Doh - MX*480*, not MX*80*. My mistake.
--**--**
---
Roland
to
80Gbps of traffic?
Thanks,
-Drew
-Original Message-
From: juniper-nsp [mailto:juniper-nsp-bounces@**puck.nether.net
juniper-nsp-boun...@puck.nether.net]
On Behalf Of Dobbins, Roland
Sent: Tuesday, July 02, 2013 9:01 AM
To: juniper-nsp Puck
Subject: Re: [j-nsp] Advice
Hi,
I've only really dealt with traffic levels under 20Gbps. I have a client
that will be pushing over 100gps, and close to 200 within the next six
months, at least thats the goal. Judging by the type of traffic it is...I
could see it happening. I'm probably in over my head, but thats another
On Tue, 2 Jul 2013, Morgan McLean wrote:
of row switches. This leaves me with hoping that OSPF ECMP works well
enough to push these kinds of traffic levels over a bunch of 10GE links,
OSPF is control plane, it'll set up the ECMP and tell the forwarding plane
about it. On some platforms,
On Jul 2, 2013, at 3:58 PM, Morgan McLean wrote:
I don't know if they will be giving us lags, which means I'll be potentially
running 10-15 BGP sessions per MX, which is a lot of routes.
I'm not a Juniper person, but the MXes aren't the recommended boxes for your
peering/transit edge.
On Tuesday, July 02, 2013 12:56:43 PM Dobbins, Roland wrote:
I'm not a Juniper person, but the MXes aren't the
recommended boxes for your peering/transit edge.
Says who?
They also said the T is a core router. I'm sure I can show
you somehow using it as an edge router or route reflector
:-).
We run pretty much exactly what you describe in the 100Gbps+ scale using
MX480s with RE-S-1800 and don't have any problems.
Contact me off list if you need any tips.
On 13-07-02 04:58 AM, Morgan McLean wrote:
Hi,
I've only really dealt with traffic levels under 20Gbps. I have a client
that
On Jul 2, 2013, at 7:34 PM, Gabriel Blanchard wrote:
We run pretty much exactly what you describe in the 100Gbps+ scale using
MX480s with RE-S-1800 and don't have any problems.
Wow, I had no idea those boxes could handle that level of traffic - thanks for
the clue!
On Jul 2, 2013, at 7:19 PM, Mark Tinka wrote:
Says who?
Doh - MX*480*, not MX*80*. My mistake.
---
Roland Dobbins rdobb...@arbor.net // http://www.arbornetworks.com
Luck is the residue of opportunity and design.
I'm not a Juniper person, but the MXes aren't the
recommended boxes for your peering/transit edge.
Says who?
They also said the T is a core router. I'm sure I can show
you somehow using it as an edge router or route reflector
In fact I'd say that MXes are an excellent choice for
On Jul 2, 2013, at 8:19 PM, sth...@nethelp.no wrote:
In fact I'd say that MXes are an excellent choice for peering/transit
edge.
Yes, I misread the OP's post as saying 'MX80', which is a smaller box, not
'MX480', my mistake.
: [j-nsp] Advice on a 100Gbps+ environment
On Jul 2, 2013, at 7:19 PM, Mark Tinka wrote:
Says who?
Doh - MX*480*, not MX*80*. My mistake.
---
Roland Dobbins rdobb...@arbor.net // http://www.arbornetworks.com
Luck
On Tuesday, July 02, 2013 03:00:30 PM Dobbins, Roland wrote:
Doh - MX*480*, not MX*80*. My mistake.
Well, in fairness, the only thing that kills the MX80 is
that crappy PPC control plane.
If you can keep your peer sessions under control, the
forwarding plane should happily a fair bit of
On Jul 2, 2013, at 8:55 PM, Drew Weaver wrote:
And what is wrong with the MX80 as a peering/transit router for up to 80Gbps
of traffic?
The OP was talking about 200gb/sec or more of traffic, with multiple eBGP
peering relationships.
On Tuesday, July 02, 2013 03:19:27 PM sth...@nethelp.no
wrote:
In fact I'd say that MXes are an excellent choice for
peering/transit edge.
Yes, if you have tons of high speed peering, the MX chassis'
are good if terminating the links on the box directly is
commercially feasible.
Otherwise,
On Tuesday, July 02, 2013 03:55:33 PM Drew Weaver wrote:
And what is wrong with the MX80 as a peering/transit
router for up to 80Gbps of traffic?
If your traffic grows linearly with your peering sessions,
it could come like a deck of cards.
If not, no reason why the MX80 won't push.
Mark.
-nsp [mailto:juniper-nsp-boun...@puck.nether.net] On Behalf Of
Drew Weaver
Sent: Tuesday, July 02, 2013 9:56 AM
To: 'Dobbins, Roland'; 'juniper-nsp Puck'
Subject: Re: [j-nsp] Advice on a 100Gbps+ environment
And what is wrong with the MX80 as a peering/transit router for up to 80Gbps of
traffic
On (2013-07-02 14:07 +), Haynes, Matthew wrote:
Just a smaller FIB table is all I know of, we use them in a few places as
transit peering points for the time being. We will probably upgrade to 480's
at some point depending on the amount of routes when Ipv6 kicks in and the
amount of
On 03/07/13 00:56, Darius Jahandarie wrote:
On Tue, Jul 2, 2013 at 9:55 AM, Drew Weaver drew.wea...@thenap.com wrote:
And what is wrong with the MX80 as a peering/transit router for up to 80Gbps
of traffic?
The lack of redundant REs + inability to have an external RE.
Other than the amount
-nsp] Advice on a 100Gbps+ environment
On Tue, Jul 2, 2013 at 9:55 AM, Drew Weaver drew.wea...@thenap.com wrote:
And what is wrong with the MX80 as a peering/transit router for up to 80Gbps
of traffic?
The lack of redundant REs + inability to have an external RE.
--
Darius Jahandarie
On Tuesday, July 02, 2013 04:50:43 PM Saku Ytti wrote:
MX104 has faster QorIQ core and 4GB DRAM.
Althought I'd have been happier to see a 1U MX switch-router
from Juniper, the MX104 is a reasonably welcome chassis,
particularly if you're looking at mixed Ethernet and non-
Ethernet (mostly
On Tuesday, July 02, 2013 05:09:44 PM Julien Goodwin wrote:
Other than the amount of CPU capacity on the MX80 (which
has been done to death here) do you really have RE's
fail often enough to be a problem?
When we had chassis-based core switches, we slowly moved
away from dual control planes
And what is wrong with the MX80 as a peering/transit router for up to 80Gbps
of traffic?
Not sure how you count up to 80Gbps. Under normal circumstances you
would use the 4 fixed ports as uplinks, meaning 2x10Gbps towards two
uplink routers. So if you're extremely lucky with your load
On Tuesday, July 02, 2013 05:31:08 PM sth...@nethelp.no
wrote:
Not sure how you count up to 80Gbps.
As a friend of mine used to say, Californian Count :-).
40 * 2
Mark.
signature.asc
Description: This is a digitally signed message part.
-Original Message-
From: juniper-nsp [mailto:juniper-nsp-boun...@puck.nether.net] On Behalf Of
Dobbins, Roland
Sent: Tuesday, July 02, 2013 9:01 AM
To: juniper-nsp Puck
Subject: Re: [j-nsp] Advice on a 100Gbps+ environment
On Jul 2, 2013, at 7:19 PM, Mark Tinka wrote:
Says who?
Doh
of traffic?
Thanks,
-Drew
-Original Message-
From: juniper-nsp
[mailto:juniper-nsp-bounces@**puck.nether.netjuniper-nsp-boun...@puck.nether.net]
On Behalf Of Dobbins, Roland
Sent: Tuesday, July 02, 2013 9:01 AM
To: juniper-nsp Puck
Subject: Re: [j-nsp] Advice on a 100Gbps+ environment
On Jul 2, 2013, at 1:00 PM, Morgan McLean wrx...@gmail.com wrote:
Any good aggregation switch suggestions? Juniper is doesn't provide good
ports for $ in the switching realmcustomer balked at the cost for a
four port 40G blade on a 9200. Might check out brocade..
If you want to remain
27 matches
Mail list logo
