Re: Juniper MX Sizing

[Shawn Hsiao <phsiao () tripadvisor com>]

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 <johnstong () 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
> johnstong () westmancom com<mailto:johnstong () westmancom com>
> P think green; don't print this email.