Hi, Running MLXe with MR2 and/or CER-RT as MPLS PEs depending on POP size. We also run the later as route reflectors.
They behave beautifully when it comes to churning BGP full feeds, convergence is around 30-45s (full RAM). Routing capacity is also amazing. I'm particularly amazed by the CER-RT from a price/performance/footprint perspective. So I would advice it unless the OP has some specific technical requirements (flowspec support, etc.). Best regards. > Le 5 déc. 2014 à 22:52, Brad Fleming <bdfle...@gmail.com> a écrit : > > 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. >
