Hi dave, Our setup was a dual ring with two devices common to both rings. It used a full mesh of LSP's but the majority of traffic was L3VPN. There were some VPLS connections as well, maybe a total of 30 VLAN's. LSP's were set up with static path's the short way around the ring and a standby active secondary path the long way around. Convergence time for a failure on either ring was barely noticable. I am no longer with that organization so I can't get access to the gear anymore :(
>From my experience, you are probably just asking the EX4200 to do more than it was made to do. That is a lot of CCC circuits to reallocate on the fly, especially for a smaller device. You may me able to reduce convergence time by making your LSP's static with a standby secondary so the path is preconfigured when a failover occurs, the only problem with this is the scalability gets poor quickly as you start to add devices. Erik On Fri, Sep 4, 2009 at 8:39 AM, daveb <sp...@zitomedia.net> wrote: > > Hi, I saw your response on NANOG and have a couple questions for you if you > don't mind. I'm doing a similar design with MPLS (OSPF/RSVP) on EX4200s in > a 10GE ring, mainly for 'ccc' circuits and IP connectivity. The EX4200 > serves both the P and PE functions and some of my rings may be as large as > 30 devices. > > In my informal lab test with just 4 EXs in a ring, the convergence time > (optomized with FRR, path protection and 50ms BDF) for 1 ccc circuit was > 300ms and with 200 ccc circuits it was several seconds, and 800 kills the > box. I can't imaging what it would be like with 20 or 30 device in the > ring. > > I was just wondering if you've doen similar testing with the MX as far as > scaling. I'm assuming the EX4200 just isn't up to the task but I'm also > concerned that ring topologies are problematic for re-routing LSPs. I can > test to find the optimum/maximum number of allowable ccc circuits with 4 > devices in the ring but I have no way or testing with 20 or 30 so I'm really > trying to determine how much worse convergence is with more devices vs > number of LSPs. > > Thanks, > Dave Bernardi > > > > At 12:00 AM 9/4/2009, Erik Schmersal wrote: > >> > Not only can they, it's done quite frequently. I just completed a >> >> deployment of seven Juniper MX series routers in a dual ring >> configuration, >> >> all acting as combination P/PE devices for a state government WAN >> backbone. >> >> Works like a charm. >> >> >> >> Erik >> >> >> >> >> >> On Thu, Sep 3, 2009 at 10:20 AM, Serge Vautour <sergevaut...@yahoo.ca >> >wrote: >> >> >> >>> Hello, >> >>> >> >>> I'm pretty confident that a router can be used to perform P & PE >> >>> functions simultaneously. What about from a best practice perspective? >> Is >> >>> this something that should be completely avoided? Why? We're >> considering >> >>> doing this as a temporary workaround but we all know temporary usually >> lasts >> >>> a long time. I'd like to know what kind of mess awaits if we let this >> one >> >>> go. >> >>> >> >>> Thanks, >> >>> Serge >> >>> >> >>> >> >>> >> >>> >> __________________________________________________________________ >> >>> Yahoo! Canada Toolbar: Search from anywhere on the web, and bookmark >> your >> >>> favourite sites. Download it now >> >>> http://ca.toolbar.yahoo.com. >> >>> >> >>> >> >> >> > >> > >
