nanog mailing list archives
Re: MX204 applications, (was about BGP RR design)
From: Saku Ytti <saku () ytti fi>
Date: Fri, 15 Feb 2019 10:57:38 +0200
On Fri, Feb 15, 2019 at 10:54 AM Phil Lavin <phil.lavin () cloudcall com> wrote:
MX80/MX104 have both sides for revenue ports.They are, however, not Trio - rather just commodity CPUs. Routing re-convergence times are shockingly high - in the region of 5-10 minutes for MX80 with a full table vs 30 seconds (ish) for 204
They are normal 1st gen trio boxes, same as MPC1, MPC2, MPC3 originals were. You may be confused about the fact that their control plane is freescale, instead of intel. -- ++ytti
Current thread:
- BGP topological vs centralized route reflector Mohammad Khalil (Feb 13)
- Re: BGP topological vs centralized route reflector Saku Ytti (Feb 13)
- Re: BGP topological vs centralized route reflector Mark Tinka (Feb 13)
- Re: BGP topological vs centralized route reflector Alain Hebert (Feb 14)
- Re: BGP topological vs centralized route reflector Mark Tinka (Feb 14)
- RE: BGP topological vs centralized route reflector Aaron Gould (Feb 14)
- Re: BGP topological vs centralized route reflector Mark Tinka (Feb 14)
- MX204 applications, (was about BGP RR design) Saku Ytti (Feb 15)
- Re: MX204 applications, (was about BGP RR design) Mark Tinka (Feb 15)
- RE: MX204 applications, (was about BGP RR design) Phil Lavin (Feb 15)
- Re: MX204 applications, (was about BGP RR design) Saku Ytti (Feb 15)
- RE: MX204 applications, (was about BGP RR design) Phil Lavin (Feb 15)
- Re: MX204 applications, (was about BGP RR design) Mark Tinka (Feb 15)
- Re: BGP topological vs centralized route reflector Mark Tinka (Feb 13)
- RE: MX204 applications, (was about BGP RR design) adamv0025 (Feb 19)
- Re: BGP topological vs centralized route reflector Saku Ytti (Feb 13)
- Re: BGP topological vs centralized route reflector Jason Lixfeld (Feb 19)
- RE: BGP topological vs centralized route reflector adamv0025 (Feb 19)