[j-nsp] MX104 capabilities question

[Adam Vitkovsky]

> From: Saku Ytti [mailto:saku at ytti.fi]
> Sent: Tuesday, June 07, 2016 2:56 PM
> To: Adam Vitkovsky
> Cc: Ross Halliday; juniper-nsp at puck.nether.net
> Subject: Re: [j-nsp] MX104 capabilities question
>
> 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 .
>
Alright but isn't running GRE tunnels over limited MTU with a need to reassemble fragments rather special case?

For BAU Internet edge implementations you need fast BGP(control-plane) decent forwarding performance while edge/DoS filters are on(yup TCAM helps with that a lot, although you can't get crazy with the length of the filters) and fast RIB to FIB programing (yes, one could argue that cisco is not quite running circles around juniper, but on that note XR/XE/IOS supports PIC for pure IPv4 so no need to get your hands dirty with vpnv4 if you need a simple workaround for slow RIB to FIB programing) and a decent netflow (yes I'm aware it has its issues on XR).


> > 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.
>
Well I'd have couple, but none would benefit this particular discussion.

> > So I'd say ASR9k1 is better box than MX104/MX80.
>
> I wouldn't, but I accept it's opinion not fact.
>
I stated couple facts above why if selecting a router for Internet edge it is a clear cut to me.


adam






        Adam Vitkovsky
        IP Engineer

T:      0333 006 5936
E:      Adam.Vitkovsky at gamma.co.uk
W:      www.gamma.co.uk

This is an email from Gamma Telecom Ltd, trading as “Gamma”. The contents of this email are confidential to the ordinary user of the email address to which it was addressed. This email is not intended to create any legal relationship. No one else may place any reliance upon it, or copy or forward all or any of it in any form (unless otherwise notified). If you receive this email in error, please accept our apologies, we would be obliged if you would telephone our postmaster on +44 (0) 808 178 9652 or email postmaster at gamma.co.uk

Gamma Telecom Limited, a company incorporated in England and Wales, with limited liability, with registered number 04340834, and whose registered office is at 5 Fleet Place London EC4M 7RD and whose principal place of business is at Kings House, Kings Road West, Newbury, Berkshire, RG14 5BY.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
 This email has been scanned for email related threats and delivered safely by Mimecast.
 For more information please visit http://www.mimecast.com
---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------