We have both Brocade CER and XMR (predecessor to the MLXe) in our environment today. We find both platforms attractive from a price and power consumption standpoint. They will both handle the IPv4 and IPv6 unicast routing tables today.* The MLXe with MR2 cards is quite a formidable box; lots of power and pretty light-weight OS (compared to Junos). We found our XMR nodes with original mgmt cards and Gen1 line cards converge pretty quick; we’ve never timed one officially but my gut feeling is RIB+FIB convergence is roughly 45sec assuming your peer is RTT nearby. The CER is a little slower to converge in our experience; however, we have them in non-critical portions of the network so I can’t really attest to their convergence performance. Sorry.. not much in the way of lab readings for our Brocade gear.
> On Dec 5, 2014, at 2:09 PM, Ammar Zuberi <am...@fastreturn.net> wrote: > > What’s a cheaper alternative to the MX104s? > > We take a full BGP table and are on the AMS-IX and DE-CIX and are looking for > a new router. The MX series looks a bit out of budget but we’re currently > looking into the Brocade MLX series. We push under 10Gbps, but we do need > 10Gbps routing due to capacity issues during attacks. > > Sorry for being a bit off-topic here. > > Ammar > > This email and any files transmitted with it are confidential and intended > solely for the use of the individual or entity to whom they are addressed. If > you have received it by mistake, please let us know by e-mail reply and > delete it from your system; you may not copy this message or disclose its > contents to anyone. Please note that any views or opinions presented in this > email are solely those of the author and do not necessarily represent those > of the company. Finally, the recipient should check this email and any > attachments for the presence of viruses. The company accepts no liability for > any damage caused by any virus transmitted by this email. > >> On Dec 6, 2014, at 12:01 AM, Brad Fleming <bdfle...@gmail.com >> <mailto:bdfle...@gmail.com>> wrote: >> >> Then you should look for something other then the MX104. >> >> In our testing an MX104 running Junos 13.3R4 with a single, full feed took >> about 4min 25sec to (1) converge the RIB from a router sitting 0.5ms RTT >> away and (2) update the FIB with all entries. This performance was observed >> with single RE and dual RE and without any excess services running. If we >> added inline-flow sampling to the device full convergence took closer to >> 5min 45sec in our lab. Efforts to bring the convergence time down (without >> filtering ingress advertisements) with the assistance of JTAC proved >> unsuccessful. >> >> We decided to “bite the bullet” and procure MX480s instead but obviously >> that’s not possible for everyone. If the MX480 is out of the question a >> Brocade CER Premium is an option. We have 3 in production and see very >> attractive convergence times; however, they have a more limited feature set >> and you’ll want to understand how their FIB memory scales. Apologies, I >> don’t know the Cisco equivalent from the ASR line these days but I’m sure >> others on the list could help out. >> >> >>> On Dec 5, 2014, at 11:45 AM, Graham Johnston <johnst...@westmancom.com >>> <mailto:johnst...@westmancom.com>> wrote: >>> >>> Shawn, >>> >>> It's more about FIB than RIB as I am concerned about the time it takes >>> until MPCs have updated route information after large scale changes in >>> routes learned via BGP. >>> >>> Graham Johnston >>> Network Planner >>> Westman Communications Group >>> 204.717.2829 >>> johnst...@westmancom.com <mailto:johnst...@westmancom.com> >>> think green; don't print this email. >>> >>> -----Original Message----- >>> From: Shawn Hsiao [mailto:phs...@tripadvisor.com] >>> Sent: Friday, December 05, 2014 11:30 AM >>> To: Graham Johnston >>> Cc: nanog@nanog.org >>> Subject: Re: Juniper MX Sizing >>> >>> >>> Is your sizing concern just for the RIB, or also for FIB to sync up? The >>> latter was a problem for us, but not the former. We also have >>> inline-jflow turned on and that is still a work-in-progress in terms of >>> impacting performance. >>> >>> We are using MX104 for similar purposes for many months now, and with some >>> tweaks in our procedures and configurations we found it to be acceptable. >>> MX104 may not be able to process routes as fast as MX480, but MX480 is >>> also not instantaneous either so similar risks exist. >>> >>> >>> >>> On Dec 5, 2014, at 11:59 AM, Graham Johnston <johnst...@westmancom.com> >>> wrote: >>> >>>> I am wondering if anyone can provide their real world experience about >>>> sizing Juniper MX routers as it relates to BGP. I am needing a device >>>> that has a mix of layer 2 and 3 features, including MPLS, that will have a >>>> very low port count requirement that will primarily be used at a remote >>>> POP site to connect to the local IX as well as one or two full route >>>> transit providers. The MX104 has what I need from a physical standpoint >>>> and a data plane standpoint, as well as power consumption figures. My >>>> only concern is whether the REs have enough horsepower to churn through >>>> the convergence calculations at a rate that operators in this situation >>>> would find acceptable. I realize that 'acceptable' is a moving target so >>>> I would happily accept feedback from people using them as to how long it >>>> takes and their happiness with the product. >>>> >>>> For those of you that deem the MX104 unacceptable in this kind of role and >>>> moved up to the MX240, what RE did you elect to use? >>>> >>>> Thanks, >>>> Graham Johnston >>>> Network Planner >>>> Westman Communications Group >>>> 204.717.2829 >>>> johnst...@westmancom.com<mailto:johnst...@westmancom.com> >>>> P think green; don't print this email. >>>> >>> >> >
