5 PM
> To: 'Stefan Fouant'; 'Brendan Mannella'; sth...@nethelp.no
> Cc: juniper-nsp@puck.nether.net
> Subject: RE: [j-nsp] Need suggestions..
>
> I wanted to add that if we want to carry Layer 2 all the way up to the
> 6509
> and terminate the Layer 3 at the core la
sth...@nethelp.no'
> Cc: 'juniper-nsp@puck.nether.net'
> Subject: RE: [j-nsp] Need suggestions..
>
> Yes, you should be able to use third party memory.
>
> Just make sure to swap it out if you end up RMA'ing a box ;)
>
> Stefan Fouant, CISSP, JNCIE-M/T
> www.short
nsp-
> boun...@puck.nether.net] On Behalf Of Brendan Mannella
> Sent: Friday, February 05, 2010 12:49 PM
> To: sth...@nethelp.no
> Cc: juniper-nsp@puck.nether.net
> Subject: Re: [j-nsp] Need suggestions..
>
> Is there a third party alternitive?
>
> Brendan Mannella, C
On Saturday 06 February 2010 12:47:53 am TCIS List Acct
wrote:
> Yes, if I am in "memory upgrade mode", I might as well
> upgrade the CFEB as well. So, if anyone has the PN#, I
> would appreciate knowing it also.
"MEM-FEB-256-S (Processor Subsystem: 256MB DRAM Field
Upgrade Option)" is what y
Is there a third party alternitive?
Brendan Mannella, CEO
TeraSwitch Networks Inc.
Office: 412.224.4333 x303
Mobile: 412.592.7848
Efax: 412.202.7094
On Feb 5, 2010, at 12:47 PM, sth...@nethelp.no wrote:
Yes, if I am in "memory upgrade mode", I might as well upgrade the
CFEB as well.
So, if
> Yes, if I am in "memory upgrade mode", I might as well upgrade the CFEB as
> well.
> So, if anyone has the PN#, I would appreciate knowing it also.
MEM-FEB-256-S
Optional M10i,M7i Forwarding Engine Board (FEB) Memory Upgrade: 256
MB DRAM Module
Steinar Haug, Nethelp consulting, sth...@n
Yes, if I am in "memory upgrade mode", I might as well upgrade the CFEB as well.
So, if anyone has the PN#, I would appreciate knowing it also.
Brendan Mannella wrote:
I just looked and mine is only 128M on the CFEB.
As with the RE, is there a third party memory upgrade that could be bought?
I think cleupon has some 3rd party modules that are known to work.
Running 9.6 mine looks as follows with 128M on the CFEB:
show chassis cfeb
CFEB status:
State Online
Intake temperature 14 degrees C / 57 degrees F
Exhaust temperature
I just looked and mine is only 128M on the CFEB.
As with the RE, is there a third party memory upgrade that could be bought?
Part Numbers welcome.
Brendan
On 2/4/10 12:53 PM, "sth...@nethelp.no" wrote:
>> Sounds like we'll need the RE-850 if we want to take more than our 2 full
>> feeds
>> t
> What is the PN# for the "new" CFEB? Looks like that may be in our future..
FEB-M10i-M7i-E-S
M10i, M7i Enhanced Forwarding Engine Board, Spare
$17.000 list price
Steinar Haug, Nethelp consulting, sth...@nethelp.no
___
juniper-nsp mailing list junip
On Friday 05 February 2010 12:55:58 am TCIS List Acct wrote:
> Excuse the
> newbie question, but what is the CFEB RAM used for -- we
> have one router with one full feed and the CFEB is at
> 42% RAM, another with two full feeds and the CFEB is at
> 42% also...
There's a couple of "memories" o
On Friday 05 February 2010 01:58:07 am TCIS List Acct wrote:
> Nope. We are running 8.4
In addition to Steinar's comments, the enhanced CFEB
requires JUNOS 9.4, minimum.
So you definitely don't have it :-).
Cheers,
Mark.
signature.asc
Description: This is a digitally signed message part.
_
Of course it is :-/
What is the PN# for the "new" CFEB? Looks like that may be in our future..
sth...@nethelp.no wrote:
I've seen several references to CFEB-E's in this thread -- we have a PN#
750-010463 in all of our M7i's -- is that the "enhanced" CFEB that folks are
referring to?
Nope, t
Nope. We are running 8.4
Mark Tinka wrote:
On Friday 05 February 2010 12:36:59 am TCIS List Acct wrote:
I've seen several references to CFEB-E's in this thread
-- we have a PN# 750-010463 in all of our M7i's -- is
that the "enhanced" CFEB that folks are referring to?
Are you running JUNOS
We are running 8.4R4.2..
inet.0: 306438 destinations, 579016 routes (305221 active, 0 holddown, 191417
hidden)
+ = Active Route, - = Last Active, * = Both
Routing Engine status:
Temperature 31 degrees C / 87 degrees F
CPU temperature 29 degrees C / 84 degree
> Sounds like we'll need the RE-850 if we want to take more than our 2 full
> feeds
> though -- although others have said we may run out of CFEB RAM first? Excuse
> the newbie question, but what is the CFEB RAM used for -- we have one router
> with one full feed and the CFEB is at 42% RAM, ano
I agree about the services. We just hang an EX4200 off of ours for more
density - won't help you if you need more than 6GB of throughput though.
Mark Tinka wrote:
On Friday 05 February 2010 12:26:09 am TCIS List Acct wrote:
We have 4 M7i's with RE-400's and 768M RAM and have never
had a pro
Here is ours on 9.6R1.3, two full feeds, approx 500 logical interfaces
inet.0: 305813 destinations, 604735 routes (305813 active, 0 holddown, 1
hidden)
Routing Engine status:
Temperature 19 degrees C / 66 degrees F
CPU temperature 16 degrees C / 60 degrees
On Friday 05 February 2010 12:51:49 am Kevin Wormington
wrote:
> As far as I now, the CPU usage doesn't have anything to
> due with the amount of traffic that is transiting the
> router since it's done by the PFE hardware.
You would be correct about that.
With the M7i (as with other Juniper h
> I've seen several references to CFEB-E's in this thread -- we have a PN#
> 750-010463 in all of our M7i's -- is that the "enhanced" CFEB that folks are
> referring to?
Nope, that's a "plain old" CFEB.
Steinar Haug, Nethelp consulting, sth...@nethelp.no
On Friday 05 February 2010 12:36:59 am TCIS List Acct wrote:
> I've seen several references to CFEB-E's in this thread
> -- we have a PN# 750-010463 in all of our M7i's -- is
> that the "enhanced" CFEB that folks are referring to?
Are you running JUNOS 9.4 or later?
... yes, it's a tri
CFEB memory is where the actual paths/routes are stored in the hardware
for forwarding. IIRC it's usage is based on the number of distinct
paths not how many feeds you have. ie. you could have 1 or 4 full feeds
and still have ~300k paths which is what you observe with your 1 or 2
feeds. The o
> We also have a few M7is with RE-400s and 768MB RAM and don't have any
> problems with a thousand or so logical interfaces and 2 full bgp feeds
> each (only 300+k routes in FIB, and full IPV6 tables). The memory usage
> is at 95% but they don't swap and I think I remember seeing somewhere
> t
On Friday 05 February 2010 12:30:18 am TCIS List Acct wrote:
> What is the anticipated price on the MX80?
Doubt you'll get any response to this here since most
information on the MX80 is likely under NDA.
Would recommend talking to your account team.
Cheers,
Mark.
signature.asc
Description:
On Friday 05 February 2010 12:26:09 am TCIS List Acct wrote:
> We have 4 M7i's with RE-400's and 768M RAM and have never
> had a problem with taking full routes (we are at 55%
> memory usage right now).
>
> With all of the comments on this topic, should we be
> worried?
If you:
- add
I seem to remember some discussion about how memory usage was reported
changing between the 8.x and 9.x releases. ie, it would report much
higher usage in newer releases but was still using basically the same
amount of memory. Perhaps a change in the underlying freebsd.
Brendan Mannella wrote
rom: TCIS List Acct
Sender: juniper-nsp-boun...@puck.nether.net
To: NSP Juniper
Subject: Re: [j-nsp] Need suggestions..
Sent: 4 Feb 2010 16:26
We have 4 M7i's with RE-400's and 768M RAM and have never had a problem with
taking full routes (we are at 55% memory usage right now).
With all
> Isn't the # of routes it can hold just a function of how much RAM the RE-'s
> can
> take?
No. The RE only holds the RIB. The FIB is held in static (SRAM) memory
in the CFEB (may be RLDRAM in the enchanced CFEB). Both are important,
the CFEB is what performs the actual packet pushing.
Having a
> We have 4 M7i's with RE-400's and 768M RAM and have never had a problem with
> taking full routes (we are at 55% memory usage right now).
>
> With all of the comments on this topic, should we be worried?
What JunOS version are you running?
This is an M7i with RE-400, a full Internet routing t
All we use them for is IPv4 routing and BGP. Nothing else. Very few local
routes also.
Sounds like we'll need the RE-850 if we want to take more than our 2 full feeds
though -- although others have said we may run out of CFEB RAM first? Excuse
the newbie question, but what is the CFEB RAM u
We also have a few M7is with RE-400s and 768MB RAM and don't have any
problems with a thousand or so logical interfaces and 2 full bgp feeds
each (only 300+k routes in FIB, and full IPV6 tables). The memory usage
is at 95% but they don't swap and I think I remember seeing somewhere
that the me
We are running 8.4 on a few, and 8.5 on the others.
Brendan Mannella wrote:
What version of code are you using. I have two m7i's, each taking one
full table. One runs 8.5 and the other 9.3 and there is a VERY big
difference in memory usage.
Brendan Mannella, CEO
TeraSwitch Networks Inc.
Offic
What version of code are you using. I have two m7i's, each taking one
full table. One runs 8.5 and the other 9.3 and there is a VERY big
difference in memory usage.
Brendan Mannella, CEO
TeraSwitch Networks Inc.
Office: 412.224.4333 x303
Mobile: 412.592.7848
Efax: 412.202.7094
On Feb 4, 2010
Isn't the # of routes it can hold just a function of how much RAM the RE-'s can
take?
sth...@nethelp.no wrote:
Also, unless you get the enchanced CFEB, there's no hope of getting four
full routing tables into an M7i/M10i.
Agree on M7i/M10i getting a bit long in the tooth. We have many of them
I've seen several references to CFEB-E's in this thread -- we have a PN#
750-010463 in all of our M7i's -- is that the "enhanced" CFEB that folks are
referring to?
陈江 wrote:
Per FIB, CEFB-E is same as MX80's TRIO, either has 1M FIB for IPv4.
Per RIB, Yes, MX80 will be more powerful than RE40
What is the anticipated price on the MX80?
One of the reasons that the MX80 looks like it is going to be so popular
is that it specifically addresses this problem by providing a much
cheaper entry level platform, especially if you are able to get by with
the fixed config version (4x XFP, 48x 10/
We have 4 M7i's with RE-400's and 768M RAM and have never had a problem with
taking full routes (we are at 55% memory usage right now).
With all of the comments on this topic, should we be worried?
Our units push ~200Mbit traffic, so they are nowhere near capacity CPU wise.
I can confirm your
We are open to any gear, Juniper or otherwise (we have a mixed Cisco and Juniper
environment now).
We have a RE-400 w/768M RAM in all of our existing M7i's and have never had an
issue with taking full routes.
Should we be worried?
Mark Tinka wrote:
On Thursday 04 February 2010 03:32:17 pm st
On Thu, Feb 04, 2010 at 09:09:33AM -0700, Chris Kawchuk wrote:
> SRX650 would foot the Bill - High Memory (2G), 4 GE Ports, does all
> the VLAN switching/tagging/fun stuff.
>
> Put it in packet-mode (JunOS 9.6+), add an Ethernet blade to the
> chassis, and voila. Instant core router.
SRX is still
On Thu, Feb 04, 2010 at 09:03:28PM +0800, ?? wrote:
> Per FIB, CEFB-E is same as MX80's TRIO, either has 1M FIB for IPv4.
>
> Per RIB, Yes, MX80 will be more powerful than RE400 or RE850.
CFEB-E is the same as the current MX hardware (I-Chip), not the same as
MX80's Trio. Not sure on the exac
SRX650 would foot the Bill - High Memory (2G), 4 GE Ports, does all the VLAN
switching/tagging/fun stuff.
Put it in packet-mode (JunOS 9.6+), add an Ethernet blade to the chassis, and
voila. Instant core router.
...and half the price of an ASR1002. =)
- Chris.
On 2010-02-04, at 2:29 AM, Mark
On Thursday 04 February 2010 04:46:52 pm Pekka Savola wrote:
> FWIW, OP may have meant 4 full tables in RIB+FIB, 4 in
> RIB and 1 in FIB, or something else. I thought the
> second. A more recent RE could do the trick, but it's a
> different issue if that's the most sensible approach in
> the
On Thu, Feb 04, 2010 at 12:41:31PM +0200, Pekka Savola wrote:
> Well, I don't know about i's, but FWIW plain old M10 runs e.g. RE-600
> (2G memory etc.) just fine.
I still have an M10 floating around (doing a chds3 termination for a
handful of t1's, nothing special), and rest assured it can NOT r
On Thursday 04 February 2010 01:30:54 pm Richard A
Steenbergen wrote:
> The price of an MX240 chassis is quite a bit "off" from
> where it should be, IMHO. That is to say, the difference
> in price between an MX960 and an MX240 chassis is so
> small that the total cost per unit of bandwidth go
On Thursday 04 February 2010 03:32:17 pm sth...@nethelp.no
wrote:
> Agree on M7i/M10i getting a bit long in the tooth. We
> have many of them in production, and they are very solid
> boxes. But especially the RE-400 is clearly showing its
> age.
If the OP is in a hurry and isn't alternative-a
Per FIB, CEFB-E is same as MX80's TRIO, either has 1M FIB for IPv4.
Per RIB, Yes, MX80 will be more powerful than RE400 or RE850.
On Thu, Feb 4, 2010 at 2:27 PM, Richard A Steenbergen wrote:
> On Thu, Feb 04, 2010 at 12:01:18AM -0600, TCIS List Acct wrote:
> > No, we are not spaced constrained.
> > Not for the M7i/M10i.
> >
> > We have explicitly asked Juniper about a beefier RE for M7i/M10i, and
> > the answer so far has been "no plans".
>
> Well, I don't know about i's, but FWIW plain old M10 runs e.g. RE-600
> (2G memory etc.) just fine.
Sure. But the M10 is EoS while the M7i/M10i i
On Thu, 4 Feb 2010, sth...@nethelp.no wrote:
Not for the M7i/M10i.
We have explicitly asked Juniper about a beefier RE for M7i/M10i, and
the answer so far has been "no plans".
Well, I don't know about i's, but FWIW plain old M10 runs e.g. RE-600
(2G memory etc.) just fine.
--
Pekka Savola
> > Concerns about the RE-850 abound.
> >
> > With the way JUNOS + the Internet routing table are growing,
> > I'm worried.
>
> I would be worried as well, but there are also REs with more memory
> and processing power that work fine AFAICT on older gear.
Not for the M7i/M10i.
We have explicitl
> > FWIW, OP may have meant 4 full tables in RIB+FIB, 4 in
> > RIB and 1 in FIB, or something else. I thought the
> > second. A more recent RE could do the trick, but it's a
> > different issue if that's the most sensible approach in
> > the grand scheme of things..
>
> Concerns about the RE
On Thu, 4 Feb 2010, Mark Tinka wrote:
On Thursday 04 February 2010 04:46:52 pm Pekka Savola wrote:
FWIW, OP may have meant 4 full tables in RIB+FIB, 4 in
RIB and 1 in FIB, or something else. I thought the
second. A more recent RE could do the trick, but it's a
different issue if that's the
On Thu, 4 Feb 2010, sth...@nethelp.no wrote:
Existing M7i/M10i boxes are pretty darn old, and IMHO are getting very
close to the end of their useful lifespans. Even with the new CFEB-E
boards (which bring I-chip capabilities and put the old ABC-chip design
out to pasture), RE-400 or even an upgra
> > Maybe a M10i or even some of the J-series might work? These devices will
> > be gateway devices for our distribution switches and not sit at the edge of
> > the network. They just need to be able to hold at least a full routing
> > table (when I said 4 full tables before, that was the # of
On Thu, Feb 04, 2010 at 12:01:18AM -0600, TCIS List Acct wrote:
> No, we are not spaced constrained.
>
> I forgot to mention we are looking to spend as little money as possible,
> and are OK with older gear :-) We've got 4 M7i's at the edge in production
> now and could probably buy a few more
No, we are not spaced constrained.
I forgot to mention we are looking to spend as little money as possible, and are
OK with older gear :-) We've got 4 M7i's at the edge in production now and
could probably buy a few more to use for this, but the # of Gig-E interfaces in
the M7i might constrai
On Wed, Feb 03, 2010 at 10:39:09PM -0500, Brendan Mannella wrote:
> I couldn't even get a quote on the mx80 so I am not sure where they
> need to discount too. I would rather have the 240 as it allows for
> redundant RE's. But it was out of my budget.
The price of an MX240 chassis is quite a bit "
M10i + EX3200 will be another option except they are 2 devices.
On Thu, Feb 4, 2010 at 1:07 AM, TCIS List Acct wrote:
> Hi folks,
>
> I need a device that:
>
> - Can handle 4 full routing tables
> - Has full layer 3 capability, including OSPF/BGP
> - Has at least 4 Gigabit Ethernet ports
> - Can
I couldn't even get a quote on the mx80 so I am not sure where they
need to discount too. I would rather have the 240 as it allows for
redundant RE's. But it was out of my budget.
Brendan Mannella, CEO
TeraSwitch Networks
On Feb 3, 2010, at 10:36 PM, Nathan Sipes
wrote:
How soon do you
How soon do you need this platform? You could go to your se and sales guy
and try to get them to discount a mx240 to the same price
On Feb 3, 2010 4:56 PM, "Brendan Mannella" wrote:
I just tried to purchase one and my vendor said they are not released to
production yet.
Brendan Mannella
TeraSwi
I don't think GA is expected until June/July 2010. Best you can
hope for is to get on the beta testers list and get one early.
David
On 3 February 2010 16:56, Brendan Mannella wrote:
> I just tried to purchase one and my vendor said they are not released to
> production yet.
>
> Brendan Mann
I just tried to purchase one and my vendor said they are not released
to production yet.
Brendan Mannella
TeraSwitch Networks Inc.
On Feb 3, 2010, at 6:47 PM, Nathan Sipes wrote:
Would depend on the physical interface options that you need the
MX80 might
be a fit. Is the enviroment space
Would depend on the physical interface options that you need the MX80 might
be a fit. Is the enviroment space constrained?
On Wed, Feb 3, 2010 at 10:07 AM, TCIS List Acct
wrote:
> Hi folks,
>
> I need a device that:
>
> - Can handle 4 full routing tables
> - Has full layer 3 capability, including
Hi folks,
I need a device that:
- Can handle 4 full routing tables
- Has full layer 3 capability, including OSPF/BGP
- Has at least 4 Gigabit Ethernet ports
- Can handle switch-like functions like VLANs/trunking
- Has redundant A/C power supplies
Suggestions welcome.
TIA.
--Mike
63 matches
Mail list logo
