[j-nsp] 2x Full Tables on MX80 with virtual-router

[Han Hwei Woo]

Hi all,

I'm currently using a virtual-router instance on an MX80 so that I can 
effectively run two different networks with different routing policies 
on the same router. I'm already using rib-groups to transfer internal 
routes between the two, but am looking to extend that to peering and 
select transit routes. Currently, the two policies are as follows:

Network 1 (default instance):
via other routers: transit A full routes, transit B full routes, peering 
routes
local:  transit C full routes, network 1 internal routes
imported from virtual router: network 2 internal routes

Network 2 (virtual router):
local: transit C static default route only, network 2 internal routes
imported from default instance: network 1 internal routes


I'm thinking of adding provider D with full tables on the virtual 
router, so that I have the following:

Network 1 (default instance):
via other routers: transit A full routes, transit B full routes, peering 
routes
local: network 1 internal routes
imported: transit C on-net routes only, transit D on-net routes only, 
network 2 internal routes

Network 2 (virtual router):
local: transit C full routes, transit D full routes, network 2 internal 
routes
imported: peering routes, network 1 internal routes


So the questions I have are as follows:
1) Will I exhaust the FIB, or be close to it now that we're over 512K 
routes? Juniper only advertises 1M routes, but from my understanding of 
a thread from last year, the 256MB RDLRAM should in theory comfortably 
accommodate up to 2M routes along with other requirements
2) Are there any other significant caveats with such a configuration?
3) Would using a bigger, modular MX solve all the drawbacks with FIB 
localization?



Thanks in advance for your responses.
-Han