Re: [j-nsp] Krt queue issues

2012-10-03 Thread Benny Amorsen
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

Re: [j-nsp] Krt queue issues

2012-10-02 Thread Saku Ytti
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

Re: [j-nsp] Krt queue issues

2012-10-02 Thread Clarke Morledge
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,

Re: [j-nsp] Krt queue issues

2012-10-02 Thread Jared Mauch
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

Re: [j-nsp] Krt queue issues

2012-10-02 Thread Benny Amorsen
"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

Re: [j-nsp] Krt queue issues

2012-10-01 Thread Jonathan Lassoff
> > 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:

Re: [j-nsp] Krt queue issues

2012-10-01 Thread Richard A Steenbergen
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

Re: [j-nsp] Krt queue issues

2012-10-01 Thread Darren O'Connor
#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

Re: [j-nsp] Krt queue issues

2012-10-01 Thread Saku Ytti
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

[j-nsp] Krt queue issues

2012-10-01 Thread Darren O'Connor
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