[j-nsp] MX104 capabilities question

[Saku Ytti]

On 7 June 2016 at 11:16, Adam Vitkovsky <Adam.Vitkovsky at gamma.co.uk> wrote:¨

> These are all valid theoretical constrains.
> Yet MX104/MX80 system capacity is 80Gbps and ASR9k1 is 120Gbps.

Because ASR9k1 has 2 NPUs.

> And as we all know if you shift from the ideal packet size and pure IP
> routing the forwarding performance deteriorates more quickly on juniper NPs
> compared to cisco NPs.

Citation needed. It's not black and white. ASR9k can't do defrag on
HW, all is punted, Trio does at very reasonable rate in HW. Trio has
much better GRE performance .

> Also the RP on ASR9k1 is faster than one used in MX104.

The HW itself on MX104 is faster, ASR9k1 is P4040 I believe, MX104 is
P5021. But of course that's not full truth. For example RSP720 is
slower CPU than MX104, but RSP720 control-plane runs circles around
MX104. Why JunOS is so dog slow, particularly on PPC, I have no idea.

> So I'd say ASR9k1 is better box than MX104/MX80.

I wouldn't, but I accept it's opinion not fact.

-- 
  ++ytti