[c-nsp] ASR 1k vs 9k as a non-transit BGP router with full tables?

[Mark Tinka]

On 2/Aug/17 11:58, Gert Doering wrote:

> This is what we currently do for "BGP edge", and I totally love the 
> box.  Even though software updates are as annoying, mostly because the
> flash disk is so sloooowwwww so the fairly complex processes take ages,
> and then a bit.

Indeed.

I also find the ASR9001 a lot slower than the ASR1000 (RP2). But it's
not as bad as the PPC-based MX's.

To the OP, there is the ASR9001-S, which is just a license-restricted
ASR9001-S. A lot like the MX5, MX10 and MX40 versions of the MX80.


> Yep.  4M routes.
>
> On the Cisco side, I think there's currently nothing better.
>
> On the J side, someone will mention MX240 - which would be a good choice
> as well (do not go for MX80 or MX104).

Yes, stay away from the MX80 and MX104. We have decommissioned all our
MX80's from production and into the lab, since they have run out of
memory to be useful for today's Internet. The MX104's are just as slow
as their MX80 cousins, so we have put a halt to them and are focusing on
the MX480 as the base chassis for our small edge PoP's, going forward.

Juniper are working on a new MX unit, Intel-based, as an upgrade to the
MX104. So anyone who was holding out for a sane RE on the MX104 can
start breathing now.

Mark.
-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: signature.asc
Type: application/pgp-signature
Size: 801 bytes
Desc: OpenPGP digital signature
URL: <https://puck.nether.net/pipermail/cisco-nsp/attachments/20170802/20cd05a2/attachment.sig>