[j-nsp] juniper router reccomendations

[Matthew Crocker]

Mike,

 Here is the view of my MX80.   This router has a couple full tables and a bunch of peers through various IXes.   I have an MX480 on order to replace this MX80.   I’ll use this a dedicated IX peering router so I won’t have full tables on my IX border later this year.

 The MX80 has horrific full table convergence (8 minutes +/-).  The MX104 is a bit better.  You would need to go to a MX240 with a real RE to get decent convergence times.

matthew at MX80> show bgp summary 
Groups: 10 Peers: 15 Down peers: 0

matthew at MX80> show route summary 
Autonomous system number: XXXX
Router ID: A.B.C.D

inet.0: 614169 destinations, 1807913 routes (614160 active, 10 holddown, 0 hidden)
Restart Complete
              Direct:      7 routes,      7 active
               Local:      6 routes,      6 active
                OSPF:    511 routes,    508 active
                 BGP: 1807386 routes, 613636 active
              Static:      1 routes,      1 active
                 LDP:      2 routes,      2 active

inet6.0: 14443 destinations, 28877 routes (14443 active, 0 holddown, 0 hidden)
Restart Complete
              Direct:      6 routes,      4 active
               Local:      6 routes,      6 active
                 BGP:  28865 routes,  14433 active


matthew at MX80> show system memory 
System memory usage distribution:
       Total memory: 2072576 Kbytes (100%)
    Reserved memory:   36896 Kbytes (  1%)
       Wired memory:  302092 Kbytes ( 14%)
      Active memory: 1399432 Kbytes ( 67%)
    Inactive memory:  120000 Kbytes (  5%)
       Cache memory:   69720 Kbytes (  3%)
        Free memory:  143680 Kbytes (  6%)
Memory disk resident memory:  349640 Kbytes
VM-Kbytes(  %  ) Resident(  %  ) Map-name
   913972(87.16)   343424(16.56) kernel

matthew at MX80> show system processes summary 
last pid: 34226;  load averages:  0.24,  0.31,  0.23  up 477+00:51:09    18:31:50
142 processes: 4 running, 110 sleeping, 28 waiting

Mem: 1367M Active, 117M Inact, 295M Wired, 68M Cache, 112M Buf, 140M Free
Swap: 2915M Total, 2915M Free


—

Matthew Crocker
President - Crocker Communications, Inc.
Managing Partner - Crocker Telecommunications, LLC
E: matthew at corp.crocker.com
E: matthew at crocker.com


> On Jul 28, 2016, at 12:09 PM, Mike <mike+jnsp at willitsonline.com> wrote:
> 
> On 07/28/2016 12:50 AM, Adam Vitkovsky wrote:
>> 
>> And on how effective is the NPU's lookup process, that is how effective is the actual lookup algorithm with CPU cycles and memory accesses, some NPUs can even offload complex lookup tasks to a specialized chip.
>> 
> 
> I appreciate your presence on other forums, but I'm pretty sure nobody here needs a basic explanation of how modern router platforms work. If you missed it, the question was specifically about juniper and bang for the buck and routing bgp on 10g and filtering.
> 
> Some folks helpfully suggested using strategies to to decrease the required size of the FIB, potentially meaning a lower box could do that job. That has some merit, as the OP was right in that for this job I don't really care about timbuktu more as whats 'close' to my two ip transit providers. I know nothing of juniper and I'm just wondering if MX80 is enough box for this or if I need to go higher up in the food chain. The one iptransit provider at my 'A' location appears to originate about 20 networks from various netblocks and this would be easy to statically enter into config while accepting defaults from both, achieving the same net result.
> 
> Mike-
> _______________________________________________
> juniper-nsp mailing list juniper-nsp at puck.nether.net
> https://puck.nether.net/mailman/listinfo/juniper-nsp
>