Savola
Subject: Re: [j-nsp] Miercom Competitive Performance Testing Results: Cisco
ASR9000 vs Juniper MX960
On Sat, Sep 26, 2009 at 09:57:41PM -0700, Kevin Oberman wrote:
> > There are 2 levels where indirect next-hop can be used, one is on
> > the RE to speed up RIB converge
> From: Mark Tinka
> Date: Mon, 28 Sep 2009 13:47:30 +0800
> Sender: juniper-nsp-boun...@puck.nether.net
>
> On Monday 28 September 2009 12:25:43 am Derick Winkworth
> wrote:
>
> > 2) We put no stock in vendor testing from anyone,
> > including Juniper. When you start poking and prodding
> > f
On Monday 28 September 2009 12:25:43 am Derick Winkworth
wrote:
> 2) We put no stock in vendor testing from anyone,
> including Juniper. When you start poking and prodding
> for details, you start hearing.. "Well this is the
> thing..." and "About that, yeah, basically that isn't
> exactly..." a
__
From: Stefan Fouant
To: mti...@globaltransit.net
Cc: juniper-nsp@puck.nether.net
Sent: Sunday, September 27, 2009 9:58:08 AM
Subject: Re: [j-nsp] Miercom Competitive Performance Testing Results: Cisco
ASR9000 vs Juniper MX960
On Sun, Sep 27, 2009 at 10:52 AM, Ste
On Sun, Sep 27, 2009 at 10:52 AM, Stefan Fouant wrote:
> You'd think that eventually Cisco would realize the gig was up, and at
> least get some other hired guns to do their testing in the future so they
> could keep the charade going for a few more years.
>
One other thing I'd like to point ou
On Sun, Sep 27, 2009 at 8:43 AM, Mark Tinka wrote:
>
> I've known to never implicitly trust anything that comes out
> of Miercom's mouth, particularly if Cisco are running the
> test.
>
You'd think that eventually Cisco would realize the gig was up, and at least
get some other hired guns to do the
On Thursday 24 September 2009 01:46:01 pm Jeff Tantsura
wrote:
> Would be interesting to see Juniper's reaction on
> following report:
>
> http://www.miercom.com/dl.html?fid=20090827&type=report
I've known to never implicitly trust anything that comes out
of Miercom's mouth, particularly if Cis
On Sat, Sep 26, 2009 at 09:57:41PM -0700, Kevin Oberman wrote:
> > There are 2 levels where indirect next-hop can be used, one is on the RE
> > to speed up RIB convergence, and the resulting FIB computation, and the
> > other one on the PFE to speed up the actual FIB update itself. Juniper
> > i
> Date: Fri, 25 Sep 2009 17:40:10 -0400 (EDT)
> From: Igor Gashinsky
> Sender: juniper-nsp-boun...@puck.nether.net
>
> On Fri, 25 Sep 2009, Stefan Fouant wrote:
>
> :: On Thu, Sep 24, 2009 at 9:30 AM, Richard A Steenbergen
> wrote:
> ::
> :: I thought this was the whole idea behind the introdu
On Fri, 25 Sep 2009, Stefan Fouant wrote:
:: On Thu, Sep 24, 2009 at 9:30 AM, Richard A Steenbergen
wrote:
::
:: I thought this was the whole idea behind the introduction of the indirect
:: next-hop. Basically abstracting a level of recursion so that when
:: underlying next-hop paths changed, a
On Fri, Sep 25, 2009 at 04:30:30PM -0400, Stefan Fouant wrote:
> I thought this was the whole idea behind the introduction of the
> indirect next-hop. Basically abstracting a level of recursion so that
> when underlying next-hop paths changed, all they needed to do was to
> do a KRT change for the
On Thu, Sep 24, 2009 at 9:30 AM, Richard A Steenbergen wrote:
> Well, we saw something similar (that I've described on this list several
> times) but not exactly what you described, starting somewhere in 7.x and
> continuing until 8.5 where it was fixed on most platforms (including
> MX). Basicall
On Fri, Sep 25, 2009 at 08:11:04AM +0300, Pekka Savola wrote:
> On Thu, 24 Sep 2009, Richard A Steenbergen wrote:
> >Well, we saw something similar (that I've described on this list several
> >times) but not exactly what you described, starting somewhere in 7.x and
> >continuing until 8.5 where it
The bottom-line is, what level of trust does Miercom deserve? Same goes for
other companies doing same activities.
- Gregory
2009/9/24 Richard A Steenbergen
> On Wed, Sep 23, 2009 at 10:46:01PM -0700, Jeff Tantsura wrote:
> > Hi,
> >
> > Would be interesting to see Juniper's reaction on followin
Pekka,
for the I-chip that is used in the MX, there are enchancements to keep
second best hop in the I-chip so it doesnt have to update the fib from
the RE in JUNOS 10.0.
This in combination with BFD, IP FRR and BGP nexthop should take care of
any reconvergence performance problems in MX.
Patrik
On Thu, 24 Sep 2009, Richard A Steenbergen wrote:
Well, we saw something similar (that I've described on this list several
times) but not exactly what you described, starting somewhere in 7.x and
continuing until 8.5 where it was fixed on most platforms (including
MX).
For reference, this threa
On Thu, Sep 24, 2009 at 12:13:41PM +0300, Pekka Savola wrote:
> Have you tested MX also during RIB or FIB changes? I'd like to use
> this as a soapbox. On Juniper platforms, when a next-hop changes,
> this results in first DELETE and then (maybe much later) ADD
> operations in FIB. We have no
] Miercom Competitive Performance Testing Results:
> Cisco ASR9000 vs Juniper MX960
>
> On Wed, Sep 23, 2009 at 10:46:01PM -0700, Jeff Tantsura wrote:
> > Hi,
> >
> > Would be interesting to see Juniper's reaction on following report:
> >
> > http://www.mi
On Thu, 24 Sep 2009, Patrik Olsson wrote:
I dont know when there is a an official response, but the report seems very
Cisco friendly...
I have performed very tough tests on the MX, putting both multicast and QoS
to the test and I have seen none of the problems Miercom claims they see...
Have y
On Wed, Sep 23, 2009 at 10:46:01PM -0700, Jeff Tantsura wrote:
> Hi,
>
> Would be interesting to see Juniper's reaction on following report:
>
> http://www.miercom.com/dl.html?fid=20090827&type=report
These reports are total frauds, Cisco pays Miercom to produce them and
to make sure the results
I dont know when there is a an official response, but the report seems
very Cisco friendly...
I have performed very tough tests on the MX, putting both multicast
and QoS to the test and I have seen none of the problems Miercom
claims they see...
Patrik
On Sep 24, 2009, at 7:46 AM, Jeff Tan
Hi,
Would be interesting to see Juniper's reaction on following report:
http://www.miercom.com/dl.html?fid=20090827&type=report
Cheers,
Jeff
___
juniper-nsp mailing list juniper-nsp@puck.nether.net
https://puck.nether.net/mailman/listinfo/juniper-nsp
22 matches
Mail list logo
