Re: [j-nsp] Poll Question (VRF scale on MX)

for the telecommunications industry:: > -Original Message- > From: Jason Lixfeld [mailto:ja...@lixfeld.ca] > Sent: Thursday, December 21, 2017 12:10 PM > To: adamv0...@netconsultings.com > Cc: juniper-nsp@puck.nether.net > Subject: Re: [j-nsp] Poll Question (VRF sca

Re: [j-nsp] Poll Question (VRF scale on MX)

p-boun...@puck.nether.net] On Behalf > Of Sebastian Becker > Sent: Thursday, December 21, 2017 12:46 PM > To: Jason Lixfeld > Cc: Juniper List > Subject: Re: [j-nsp] Poll Question (VRF scale on MX) > > Hi Jason, > > you’re right … the claims means that there is no (extra) so

Re: [j-nsp] Poll Question (VRF scale on MX)

The use of NH DMEM might also slightly vary with various features (LFA/PIC/multipath), I guess. > On 21 dec. 2017 at 12:19, adamv0...@netconsultings.com wrote : > > Junos code version: > Number of VRFs: > Number of destinations (total or average per VRF): > Output from: request pfe execute

Re: [j-nsp] Poll Question (VRF scale on MX)

Hi Jason, you’re right … the claims means that there is no (extra) software restriction besides what the hardware can deliver itself. The MX204 should have the following scale limits: FIB:10M (IPv4 and IPv6 combined) RIB:80M (IPv4); 50M (IPv6) VRFs: 6050 Mostly the

Re: [j-nsp] Poll Question (VRF scale on MX)

Hey there, General question - MX204-IR, for example, claims no RIB/FIB scale restrictions. While I’m sure with that claim, RIB scale is limited to the amount of physical memory available on the box, I’m not sure what the physical limits are around the FIB. My understanding is that it’s Trio

[j-nsp] Poll Question (VRF scale on MX)

Hi folks, I have this large scale rollout and while doing scaling testing and Juniper recommendations will get you some confidence, I'd like to understand where we land on the graph in comparison with other operators (can't get this info from Juniper folks unfortunately). But we can build our