[j-nsp] Cisco ASR 9001 vs Juniper MX104

[Mark Tinka]

On 1/Dec/15 18:43, Adam Vitkovsky wrote:

>
> I'd like to ask Mark and users of MX as peering routers (in a scaled configuration) do you put every peer into separate group and you don't mind or perceive any inefficiencies during BGP convergence resulting from many update groups?
> Or you start with several peer groups and group peers based on common egress policies into those and don't mind a peer flapping if it's policy needs to be adjusted and the peer is being put into its own update group?

We run BGP on the MX chassis', as well as the MX80.

We are just deploying our first MX104, but I expect that perform like
the MX80 control- and management plane-wise anyway.

To answer your question, each eBGP peer is a separate group for us, even
when they are sharing the same inbound and outbound routing policies.
It's just easier to manage that way, and we do that mostly for the
flexibility in case we need to do some peer-specific things.

No performance issue on the x86-based MX's. The MX80 is just slow, but
this is in general. I'm not certain it is due to our BGP group strategy,
but I also have no empirical data to dispute this. We are talking
hundreds of BGP groups on MX80's, as we use those more for peering than
our MX480's (which are more for customer edge).

Mark.