[j-nsp] Experience with J series

Pavel Lunin plunin at senetsy.ru
Sat Sep 26 14:00:10 EDT 2009

Ups, I really missed the number of BGP routes limitation for SRX240. Sorry.

However 300K stated in the datasheet is not a hard limit for J series. It is
only a number well known to be supported with no issues. I wonder if this is
different for SRX.

But anyway BGP RR license is only available for J and SRX650, so
SRX100/210/240 do not support RR at all.

BTW, running 2 peers with fullview needs at least twice of 300k in RIB. J
series with JUNOS 9.5 is capable to load them all into RIB, but when it gets
to calculating best paths and populating FIB (which is also stored in DRAM
on J/SRX) the process can't get enough memory. Stripping off everything
longer than, say, /21 saves the deal. But you'd rather not go there if you
need to run full tables not only at the edge. Just use 9.3 packet mode.


2009/9/26 Gregory Agerba <gregory.agerba at gmail.com>

> Hi Pavel,
> Thanks for your input.
> Based on factsheets the J series outperform BGP capabilities of the SRX
> series. The only out that outperform in SRX is the 650 which looks like a
> real good deal (thanks for pointing it out to me!).
> Nice weekend.
> - Gregory
> 2009/9/26 Pavel Lunin plunin at senetsy.ru
>> I'd warn you guys of running peers with full BGP on J series with 1 Gig of
>> RAM. It was not a problem till 9.4. But since 9.4 JUNOS for J-series is flow
>> based only thus fwwd daemon preallocates plenty of memory for stateful
>> sessions tracking just like ScreenOS does. Even if you switch it to packet
>> context.
>> I myself tried to run 2 peers with fullview on J2320 JUNOS 9.4/9.5 with 1
>> Gig and bumped into BGP session dropping with LowMem event.
>> Moreover keep in mind that J2320/2350 are less valuable than SRX240 in
>> price/performace terms.
>> --
>> Regards,
>> Pavel

More information about the juniper-nsp mailing list