[j-nsp] [EXT] Any red flags on this MX240 configuration...

[Chuck Anderson]

I'd avoid the older RE-S-2000-4096-S with multiple full tables and newer code.  I have some older lab boxes that can't really handle it, but I keep them around just for lab testing.  I had to trim down the full tables with AS Path Length filters to keep them from running out of RAM, swapping, and eventually crashing/core dumping.

You really want a 64-bit capable RE, such as RE-S-1800X4-32G-S or newer.  The rest of the hardware should be fine (as long as the newer REs support it, I didn't check.)

On Wed, Feb 26, 2020 at 08:46:42AM -0500, Alain Hebert wrote:
>      Beside the RE-S-2000-4096-S being EOL.  My experience with 16.2 was 
> pretty solid.
> 
>      We're planning to have 3 Full Routes BGP and the MPLS alphabet 
> soup, yadi yada.
> 
>      We don't want 2 RE since we'll use 2 MX240 and there is no point to 
> go for ISSU since the RE is EOL.
> 
>     1x CHAS-BP-MX240-S
>     1x FFANTRAY-MX240-HC
>     1x RE-S-2000-4096-S
>     1x SCBE-MX-S
>     2x PWR-MX480-1200-AC
>     1x MPC-3D-16XGE-SFPP