RE: MX204 applications, (was about BGP RR design)

2019-02-19 Thread adamv0025
> Saku Ytti > Sent: Friday, February 15, 2019 8:41 AM > > On Fri, Feb 15, 2019 at 9:55 AM Mark Tinka wrote: > > > > MX204 be good for that ? > > > > I'm sure it will be - it's an MPC7 in a cage :-). > > Anyone know why MX204 has so few ports? It seems like it only has WAN > side used, leaving F

RE: MX204 applications, (was about BGP RR design)

2019-02-15 Thread Phil Lavin
> They are normal 1st gen trio boxes, same as MPC1, MPC2, MPC3 originals were. > You may be confused about the fact that their control plane is freescale, > instead of intel. Sorry, yes - you're right. Re-convergence times are, however, still awful. Though if you're not handling a lot of routes

Re: MX204 applications, (was about BGP RR design)

2019-02-15 Thread Mark Tinka
On 15/Feb/19 10:54, Phil Lavin wrote: > They are, however, not Trio - rather just commodity CPUs. Routing > re-convergence times are shockingly high - in the region of 5-10 minutes for > MX80 with a full table vs 30 seconds (ish) for 204 They are Trio. It's the control plane which is not In

Re: MX204 applications, (was about BGP RR design)

2019-02-15 Thread Saku Ytti
On Fri, Feb 15, 2019 at 10:54 AM Phil Lavin wrote: > > MX80/MX104 have both sides for revenue ports. > > They are, however, not Trio - rather just commodity CPUs. Routing > re-convergence times are shockingly high - in the region of 5-10 minutes for > MX80 with a full table vs 30 seconds (ish)

RE: MX204 applications, (was about BGP RR design)

2019-02-15 Thread Phil Lavin
> Anyone know why MX204 has so few ports? It seems like it only has WAN side > used, leaving FAB side entirely unused, throwing away 50% of free capacity. The usable port configs are also quite tricky. Juniper have had to make a tool to validate the configurations (https://apps.juniper.net/home/

Re: MX204 applications, (was about BGP RR design)

2019-02-15 Thread Mark Tinka
On 15/Feb/19 10:40, Saku Ytti wrote: > Is this because we as a community are so anal towards vendors about > PPS performance that JNPR marketing forbade them making pizza-box MPC7 > using all the capacity in fears of people being angry about not being > able to do good PPS on all ports? > > As

MX204 applications, (was about BGP RR design)

2019-02-15 Thread Saku Ytti
On Fri, Feb 15, 2019 at 9:55 AM Mark Tinka wrote: > > MX204 be good for that ? > > I'm sure it will be - it's an MPC7 in a cage :-). Anyone know why MX204 has so few ports? It seems like it only has WAN side used, leaving FAB side entirely unused, throwing away 50% of free capacity. MX80/MX104