Re: Juniper MX Sizing

[Colton Conor <colton.conor () gmail com>]

Brad,

Did you ever get the numbers for the MX480?

On Fri, Dec 5, 2014 at 3:10 PM, Brad Fleming <bdflemin () gmail com> wrote:

> We haven’t received the MX480 gear yet (POs just went in about a week
> ago). But we tested MX960s with the same RE-S-1800x4 w/ 16GB RAM RIB+FIB
> convergence time was roughly 45sec. We never worried about getting a super
> accurate time for the MX960 because even an “eye test” showed it was fast
> enough for our application and we were much more concerned with other parts
> of the box. Also, we had inline-flow reporting configured on the MX960.
> Actually, the MX960’s had a full, production-ready config while the MX104
> was tested with a stripped down after we discovered the slow convergence.
>
> Once we get some MX480s on the bench I’ll report back.
>
>
> > On Dec 5, 2014, at 2:35 PM, Shawn Hsiao <phsiao () tripadvisor com> wrote:
> >
> >
> > MX480 is also not instantaneous, so the same problem applies.   Brad, do
> you have the number for MX480 for comparison?
> > What we decided was, given both models suffer the same problems, just
> different duration, we decided to mitigate the problem and not spending the
> money.
> > Thanks.
> >
> >
> >
> > On Dec 5, 2014, at 3:01 PM, Brad Fleming <bdflemin () 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 <johnstong () 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
> > > > johnstong () westmancom com
> > > > think green; don't print this email.
> > > >
> > > > -----Original Message-----
> > > > From: Shawn Hsiao [mailto:phsiao () 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 <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.