Jared Mauch writes:
> As far as the fallback 'default' route, if you are purchasing transit
> from someone, you could consider a last-resort default pointed at
> them. You can exclude routes like 10/8 etc by routing these to discard
> + install on your devices.
That only helps if the default get
On (2012-10-02 15:20 -0400), Clarke Morledge wrote:
> routing table feed you can have before you start to hit this issue
> on the MX80? Are there other load factors involved?
Yes there are other factors than just the number of BGP peers, I cannot
reliably identify them.
> I assuming that the RE
A very interesting thread.
Does anyone have a good feel for how many BGP neighbors with a full
routing table feed you can have before you start to hit this issue on the
MX80? Are there other load factors involved?
I assuming that the RE-1300 on the MX chassis units do not suffer from
this,
On Oct 2, 2012, at 10:49 AM, Benny Amorsen wrote:
> "Darren O'Connor" writes:
>
>> Indeed, this is the worst thing this router can do. I have redundant
>> routers sitting there doing absolutely nothing as this router's
>> control-plane says everything is fine.
>
> I'm looking at using MX80 as
"Darren O'Connor" writes:
> Indeed, this is the worst thing this router can do. I have redundant
> routers sitting there doing absolutely nothing as this router's
> control-plane says everything is fine.
I'm looking at using MX80 as an Internet transit router too...
Do you know if it is possibl
>
> Juniper should just come out straight.
>
> > Date: Mon, 1 Oct 2012 15:15:39 +0300
> > From: s...@ytti.fi
> > To: juniper-nsp@puck.nether.net
> > Subject: Re: [j-nsp] Krt queue issues
> >
> > On (2012-10-01 08:38 +0100), Darren O'Connor wrote:
On Mon, Oct 01, 2012 at 03:15:39PM +0300, Saku Ytti wrote:
>
> JunOS is exceedingly poorly performing platform in control-plane,
> especially with PPC control-plane. 200 neighbours on MX80 does not sound
> like a good idea right now. You probably should have gone with bigger MX
> where you'd ge
#x27; - no comment on the comment I got from JTAC.
I do happen to have a spare Brocade XMR that I might just use instead.
Juniper should just come out straight.
> Date: Mon, 1 Oct 2012 15:15:39 +0300
> From: s...@ytti.fi
> To: juniper-nsp@puck.nether.net
> Subject: Re: [j-nsp] Krt q
On (2012-10-01 08:38 +0100), Darren O'Connor wrote:
Hi Darren,
> So to me this means this problem is a software issue, not hardware. And it's
> not yet fixed. Hence spending the money on a new box would be of no use.
Certainly not hardware issue, cisco boxes running significantly lower
performa
Hi all.
I'm looking at replacing my ageing m7i's with MX80s. I have run into a few
issues where the RIB is not moved to the FIB in a timely fashion and the router
effectively black holes traffic for up to 20 minutes while it empties the krt
queue.
My hope that with a beefier MX80, this problem
10 matches
Mail list logo