[j-nsp] Transfer some task from MX to VRR

[Phil Bedard]

On 12/1/14, 2:41 PM, "Robert Hass" <robhass at gmail.com> wrote:

>>I think vMX can forward data.
>
>vMX indeed will be full-featured router. But my questions was related to
>move part of control-plane (basically whole BGP part of rpd) to external
>server. Maybe OpenFlow somehow helps here ? How openflow take care of eBGP
>to customers ? Session should be on router or on OpenFlow controller ? OF
>v1.3 just has been implemented in JunOS 14.x releases for MX series.

Juniper as far as I know plans on maintaining two versions of the vMX at 
least to start with.  The vRR version is similar to the one used for 
things like lab testing and uses 1 VM with both the vRE and vPFE 
integrated.  The vRR is not meant to be in the forwarding path just like 
the vRR offerings from ALU and Cisco.  You would not really want to use it 
to terminate eBGP sessions.   

There is another higher speed forwarding version of the vMX which requires 
using Intel 10GE NICs.  It doesn't really support high speed 1G since it 
uses the Intel DPDK/SR-IOV specific to those 10G cards.  ALU has the same 
exact thing with their VSR series.  

Now that version of the vMX would be one which could terminate customer 
circuits and EBGP sessions.  The perfect scenario for it is terminating 
lower-speed Ethernet Internet customers since those usually don't require 
much advanced processing like NAT, etc.   

Long-term most of the vendors have plans to "externalize" the control 
planes.  Juniper has experience with this since they have done it with the 
TX-Matrix and the old EX8200 virtual chassis stuff previously.  I think 
you will see all vendors headed this way though especially when it comes 
to things like subscriber management/bras functionality.  No reason to 
limit those things to a router RE anymore.  


Phil 


>
>BTW. Are anyone participating in vMX beta-trial ?
>
>Rob
>
>
>On Mon, Dec 1, 2014 at 3:06 PM, Mark Tinka <mark.tinka at seacom.mu> wrote:
>
>> On Monday, December 01, 2014 03:09:15 PM Eric Van Tol wrote:
>>
>> > I'm pretty sure the VRR is mostly for solving the problem
>> > of iBGP session scaling.  If that's not the case, I'm
>> > sure someone will correct me.
>>
>> I think vMX can forward data. It will come down to how well
>> it optimizes the CPU, and how good the CPU actually is.
>>
>> > You don't have much choice with eBGP if you don't want to
>> > use multihop, unless you want to backhaul every customer
>> > circuit via L2 to your VRR, in which case the VRR is
>> > basically the gateway for the customer's circuit.
>>
>> Agree.
>>
>> Your design can get complicated if you separate routing from
>> forwarding for a particular device or downstream-set.
>>
>> Mark.