[j-nsp] Smallest Juniper capable of moving 5M packet per second ?

[michael.firth at bt.com]

If you can accept exactly 4 GigE ports and 4 FE ports, then you could
use an M7i.

It can be ordered with 1 built-in GigE port, and has 4 PIC slots, which
you could use for 3 more GigE ports, and a quad FE PIC to give your four
FE ports.

This has the advantage over the M10i of being only 2RU big, rather than
5RU. The disadvantage is that a fully populated M10i could have, for
example, 6 x GigE ports + 8 x FE Ports.

If you are wanting 2 routers as a main and standby, then the extra
redundancy available with the M10i (optional CFEB redundancy and RE
redundancy) may not be an issue.

In terms of testing with the precise load you are looking at, I can't
help much, beyond referencing the Juniper Wiki, which says that the M7i
is capable of 16Mpps.

http://juniper.cluepon.net/index.php/M7i

The L2 header is removed by the PIC, so with smaller packets the
relatively high overhead on Ethernet may assist, as the data rate will
have a higher percentage of headers than if you were running full size
packets.

Michael


> -----Original Message-----
> From: juniper-nsp-bounces at puck.nether.net 
> [mailto:juniper-nsp-bounces at puck.nether.net] On Behalf Of Mr. 
> James W. Laferriere
> Sent: 06 September 2006 04:05
> To: juniper-nsp
> Subject: [j-nsp] Smallest Juniper capable of moving 5M packet 
> per second ?
> 
> 
>  	Hello All ,  As you can tell from the subject matter I 
> am here to 
> pest^H^H^Hick your brains .
> 
>  	I have a customer that will have a network that will be 
> passing very near if not over 5M packets per second ,  a 
> goodly portion of these could 
> easily be in the 64Byte to 384Byte size range .  Thus the 
> standard Giga/Mega 
> bits per second measures that everyone uses aren't of great 
> value .  Especially 
> since all routers/switches are measured in PPS .  nuf said there .
> 
>  	I'll need to have at least 4GE interfaces & 4FE 
> interfaces .  Since the 
> port count wasn't all that high I was thinking of the M10i or 
> the venerable M20 
> .  My only problem is the M20 uses an older FPC than the M10i 
> can .  If my 
> memory serves me ,  the older FPC is only capable of 3.2Mpps 
> .  While the newer 
> FPC that can beused in the M10i is at least twice that .
> 
>  	The other bite is the device has to be 120Vac .  And be 
> able to be fully 
> redundant ,  ie: if Router 'A' passes away Router 'B' is 
> johnny on the spot .
> 
>  	And of course the unit has to cost near nothing .  But 
> we know where 
> that goes .  Any questions comments welcome on or off list ,  
> But probably best 
> that they be off list .
>  		Tia ,  JimL
> -- 
> +-------------------------------------------------------------
> ---------+
> | James   W.   Laferriere |   System    Techniques   | Give 
> me VMS     |
> | Network        Engineer | 3600 14th Ave SE #20-103 |  Give 
> me Linux  |
> | babydr at baby-dragons.com |  Olympia ,  WA.   98501  |   only 
>  on  AXP |
> +-------------------------------------------------------------
> ---------+
> _______________________________________________
> juniper-nsp mailing list juniper-nsp at puck.nether.net 
> https://puck.nether.net/mailman/listinfo/juniper-nsp
>