[j-nsp] TCAM full on EX8200?

[David Ball]

On 13 October 2011 14:41, Chris Morrow <morrowc at ops-netman.net> wrote:
>>
>>   I can't help but wonder if perhaps Juniper just expects us to
>> buy....I dunno....routers....to do routing.  I'm not trying to justify
>
> this is a flavor of the 'its only a TOR switch' discussion, but...

  Should it not be ?

> <http://www.juniper.net/us/en/local/pdf/datasheets/1000261-en.pdf>
> talks about mpls capabilities,

   ...roadmapped, though I haven't a clue how old that PDF is..perhaps
it supports MPLS now.  NSR was also listed as roadmapped, which I
would consider a requirement of a dual-RE device which will be
performing a significant amount of routing.

> as well as bgp, ipv6, isis....

  ...all 3 of which require Advanced Feature Licenses (just to
'enable' a feature which is absolutely required).  Same PDF indicates
"* Shared route table—actual capacity depends on prefix distribution"
when referring to IPv4 unicast routes.  I'm not doubting that it was a
bad implementation as Paul described, but they do make mention of it.

> so, it
> kind of fits the bill for a larger network device with routing
> capabilities, eh?

  Clearly YMMV....let's ask the OP.  Or, ask your Juniper RE at the
Goog if they would recommend it for such a purpose.  I haven't tried
to push full tables to enough switches to know how many of them are
good at it, so please forgive both my ignorance and smugness (yeah,
that's a word).

David