[j-nsp] MX80 Route table Size

[Luca Salvatore]

This concerns me a little.  I'M about  to take a full table on a MX5.
Is it only an issue when the adjacencyis lost and we need to receive the
table again or will performance of the entire box be affected?
-- 
Luca 





On 25/09/13 12:18 AM, "Nitzan Tzelniker" <nitzan.tzelniker at gmail.com>
wrote:

>Hi,
>
>The problem with the MX80 is not the FIB size but the slow RE
>The time it take to receive full routing table is long and to put it into
>the FIB is even worst
>
>Nitzan
>
>
>On Tue, Sep 24, 2013 at 10:21 AM, Krasimir Avramski
><krasi at smartcom.bg>wrote:
>
>> Agree.. other elements like counters, filters, descriptors etc .. but
>>it is
>> dynamic allocation which isn't  the case with ichip - 16M bank for
>> firewalls , 16M for jtree with fixed regions. Although  there is a
>> workaround(
>>
>> 
>>http://www.juniper.net/techpubs/en_US/junos10.4/topics/task/configuration
>>/junos-software-jtree-memory-repartitioning.html
>> )
>> for
>> ichip I am calculating the worst case scenario with unique inner vpn
>>label
>> usage with composite nexthops.
>>
>>
>> Best Regards,
>> Krasi
>>
>>
>> On 24 September 2013 09:40, Saku Ytti <saku at ytti.fi> wrote:
>>
>> > On (2013-09-24 08:49 +0300), Krasimir Avramski wrote:
>> >
>> > > Ichip(DPC) has 16-32M RLDRAM and holds 1M routes in FIB, so 256M on
>> trio
>> > is
>> > > huge increment - it is in realm of ~5M routes(since they use dynamic
>> > memory
>> > > allocation to fill up with routes only) and more than 1M labeled
>>prefix
>> >
>> > I don't think this is apples to apples. The 16MB RLDRAM is just for
>> jtree,
>> > while 256MB in trio has lot more than just ktree, and some elements
>>are
>> > sprayed across the 4*64MB devices which make up the 256MB RDLRAM.
>> >
>> > I'd be quite comfortable with 2M FIB throughout the lifecycle of
>>current
>> > generation, but I've never heard JNPR quote anything near this for
>>trio
>> > scale.
>> >
>> > I'm not sure I either understand why it matters if route is labeled or
>> > not, if
>> > each route has unique label, then it means you're wasting NH space,
>>but
>> if
>> > you
>> > are doing next-hop-self and advertising only loopback labels, then I
>> don't
>> > think labeled route should be more expensive.
>> > (NH lives in RLDRAM in Trio as well, and I believe it specifically is
>> > sprayed
>> > across all four RLDRAM devices).
>> >
>> > --
>> >   ++ytti
>> > _______________________________________________
>> > juniper-nsp mailing list juniper-nsp at puck.nether.net
>> > https://puck.nether.net/mailman/listinfo/juniper-nsp
>> >
>> _______________________________________________
>> juniper-nsp mailing list juniper-nsp at puck.nether.net
>> https://puck.nether.net/mailman/listinfo/juniper-nsp
>>
>_______________________________________________
>juniper-nsp mailing list juniper-nsp at puck.nether.net
>https://puck.nether.net/mailman/listinfo/juniper-nsp