On 14/Mar/16 14:35, Colton Conor wrote:
> Mark,
>
> You are right that makes sense. So as a recap, you were seeing about
> 45 seconds route convergence time using RE-S-1800x4 w/ 16GB RAM. For a
> MX104 it took 4min 25sec. I assume a MX80 would be even slower than an
> MX104.
>
> What about a MX4
Mark,
You are right that makes sense. So as a recap, you were seeing about 45
seconds route convergence time using RE-S-1800x4 w/ 16GB RAM. For a MX104
it took 4min 25sec. I assume a MX80 would be even slower than an MX104.
What about a MX480 with RE-2000's with 4GB of ram? Does anyone have any
s
On 14/Mar/16 04:02, Colton Conor wrote:
> Brad,
>
> Did you ever get the numbers for the MX480?
I would not expect a difference in performance for the MX480 vis a vis
the MX960 using the same RE's, MPC's and SCB's.
Mark.
; >>> 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
> >>>
gt; learned via BGP.
>>
>> Graham Johnston
>> Network Planner
>> Westman Communications Group
>> 204.717.2829
>> johnst...@westmancom.com
>> think green; don't print this email.
>>
>> -Original Message-
>> From: Shawn Hsiao
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,
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...@wes
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
&g
tes learned via BGP.
>>>
>>> Graham Johnston
>>> Network Planner
>>> Westman Communications Group
>>> 204.717.2829
>>> johnst...@westmancom.com
>>> think green; don't print this email.
>>>
>>> -Original
.717.2829
>> 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
'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
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
la
If you're looking at scaling passed the mx104, I would consider the mx480
chassis. The price delta between the 240 vs. 480 bare chassis is negligible
and you'll get more slots to grow into. Especially, if you have a need to
do sampling or anything else that may require a service pic.
On Dec 5, 2014
If you are looking for small foot print I +1 the 240s.
On Fri, Dec 5, 2014 at 12:08 PM, Jason Bothe wrote:
> Graham,
>
> We use both the MX240 and MX480 (for 100G) 1800REs. Very happy with this
> hardware.
>
> Jason Bothe, Manager of Networking
>
>o +1 713 348
Graham,
We use both the MX240 and MX480 (for 100G) 1800REs. Very happy with this
hardware.
Jason Bothe, Manager of Networking
o +1 713 348 5500
m +1 713 703 3552
ja...@rice.edu
On 5, Dec
15 matches
Mail list logo
