Login | Register For Free | Help
Search for: (Advanced)

Mailing List Archive: nsp: juniper

mx240 vs asr 9006

 

 

nsp juniper RSS feed   Index | Next | Previous | View Threaded


piotr.1234 at interia

Apr 24, 2012, 8:55 AM

Post #1 of 17 (5127 views)
Permalink
mx240 vs asr 9006

Hi

I have to upgrade my bgp routers, i have budget for two options:

1.
- bundle: MX240BASE-AC-HIGH, MPC1-3D-R-B, MIC-3D-20XGE-SFP,
MIC-3D-2XGE-XFP; configurable RE, SCB, and PEM
- better routing engine RE-S-1800X2-8G-UPG-BB + jflow license ( netflow
v9 or ipfix) S-ACCT-JFLOW-IN

or

2. asr 9006
- A9K-RSP-4G
- A9K-MOD80-TR, 80G Modular Linecard, Packet Transport Optimized
- license for l3 vpn

the price is almost the same. I need:

- ports: from 4x10G line to max 8x10G, line rate
- 3 virtual routers with full ip routing table v4
- 10 virtual routers with ca 10k prefix in routing table v4
- v6
- up to 12 full bgp feed
- netflow v9 or ipfix, sampling max 100/s
- define counters on logical and physical interfaces, count many times
to the same counter, one packet could be count to different counters in
next term
- access to counters via snmp
- independent control plane and data plane
- and few others things on bgp edge

which model will be better ?
thanks for some advice

regards
Peter

_______________________________________________
juniper-nsp mailing list juniper-nsp [at] puck
https://puck.nether.net/mailman/listinfo/juniper-nsp


dhanks at juniper

Apr 24, 2012, 9:41 AM

Post #2 of 17 (5032 views)
Permalink
Re: mx240 vs asr 9006 [In reply to]

The last time I looked the ASR9K still had a small FIB and tapped out at
around 500K.

Thank you,

--
Doug Hanks - JNCIE-ENT #213, JNCIE-SP #875
Sr. Systems Engineer
Juniper Networks


On 4/24/12 8:55 AM, "Peter" <piotr.1234 [at] interia> wrote:

>Hi
>
>I have to upgrade my bgp routers, i have budget for two options:
>
>1.
>- bundle: MX240BASE-AC-HIGH, MPC1-3D-R-B, MIC-3D-20XGE-SFP,
>MIC-3D-2XGE-XFP; configurable RE, SCB, and PEM
>- better routing engine RE-S-1800X2-8G-UPG-BB + jflow license ( netflow
>v9 or ipfix) S-ACCT-JFLOW-IN
>
>or
>
>2. asr 9006
>- A9K-RSP-4G
>- A9K-MOD80-TR, 80G Modular Linecard, Packet Transport Optimized
>- license for l3 vpn
>
>the price is almost the same. I need:
>
>- ports: from 4x10G line to max 8x10G, line rate
>- 3 virtual routers with full ip routing table v4
>- 10 virtual routers with ca 10k prefix in routing table v4
>- v6
>- up to 12 full bgp feed
>- netflow v9 or ipfix, sampling max 100/s
>- define counters on logical and physical interfaces, count many times
>to the same counter, one packet could be count to different counters in
>next term
>- access to counters via snmp
>- independent control plane and data plane
>- and few others things on bgp edge
>
>which model will be better ?
>thanks for some advice
>
>regards
>Peter
>
>_______________________________________________
>juniper-nsp mailing list juniper-nsp [at] puck
>https://puck.nether.net/mailman/listinfo/juniper-nsp


_______________________________________________
juniper-nsp mailing list juniper-nsp [at] puck
https://puck.nether.net/mailman/listinfo/juniper-nsp


sergevautour at yahoo

Apr 24, 2012, 10:55 AM

Post #3 of 17 (5013 views)
Permalink
Re: mx240 vs asr 9006 [In reply to]

Note that the MX requires an MS-DPC card in order to to NetFlow v9.

Serge


________________________________
From: Doug Hanks <dhanks [at] juniper>
To: Peter <piotr.1234 [at] interia>; "juniper-nsp [at] puck" <juniper-nsp [at] puck>
Sent: Tuesday, April 24, 2012 1:41:24 PM
Subject: Re: [j-nsp] mx240 vs asr 9006

The last time I looked the ASR9K still had a small FIB and tapped out at
around 500K.

Thank you,

--
Doug Hanks - JNCIE-ENT #213,  JNCIE-SP #875
Sr. Systems Engineer
Juniper Networks


On 4/24/12 8:55 AM, "Peter" <piotr.1234 [at] interia> wrote:

>Hi
>
>I have to upgrade my bgp routers, i have budget for two options:
>
>1.
>- bundle: MX240BASE-AC-HIGH, MPC1-3D-R-B, MIC-3D-20XGE-SFP,
>MIC-3D-2XGE-XFP; configurable RE, SCB, and PEM
>- better routing engine RE-S-1800X2-8G-UPG-BB + jflow license ( netflow
>v9 or ipfix) S-ACCT-JFLOW-IN
>
>or
>
>2. asr 9006
>- A9K-RSP-4G
>- A9K-MOD80-TR, 80G Modular Linecard, Packet Transport Optimized
>- license for l3 vpn
>
>the price is almost the same. I need:
>
>- ports: from  4x10G line to  max 8x10G, line rate
>- 3 virtual routers with full ip routing table v4
>- 10 virtual routers with ca 10k prefix in routing table v4
>- v6
>- up to 12 full bgp feed
>- netflow v9 or ipfix, sampling max 100/s
>- define counters on logical and physical interfaces, count many times
>to the same counter, one packet could be count to different counters in
>next term
>- access to counters via snmp
>- independent control plane and data plane
>- and few others things on bgp edge
>
>which model will be better ?
>thanks for some advice
>
>regards
>Peter
>
>_______________________________________________
>juniper-nsp mailing list juniper-nsp [at] puck
>https://puck.nether.net/mailman/listinfo/juniper-nsp


_______________________________________________
juniper-nsp mailing list juniper-nsp [at] puck
https://puck.nether.net/mailman/listinfo/juniper-nsp
_______________________________________________
juniper-nsp mailing list juniper-nsp [at] puck
https://puck.nether.net/mailman/listinfo/juniper-nsp


dhanks at juniper

Apr 24, 2012, 1:58 PM

Post #4 of 17 (5026 views)
Permalink
Re: mx240 vs asr 9006 [In reply to]

The MX using Trio/MPC line cards support inline IPFIX for flow statistics. No services card required. Just have to be sure your collector supports it.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/IP_Flow_Information_Export

Thank you,

--
Doug Hanks - JNCIE-ENT #213, JNCIE-SP #875
Sr. Systems Engineer
Juniper Networks

From: Serge Vautour <sergevautour [at] yahoo<mailto:sergevautour [at] yahoo>>
Reply-To: Serge Vautour <serge [at] nbnet<mailto:serge [at] nbnet>>
Date: Tue, 24 Apr 2012 10:55:39 -0700
To: Doug Hanks <dhanks [at] juniper<mailto:dhanks [at] juniper>>, "juniper-nsp [at] puck<mailto:juniper-nsp [at] puck>" <juniper-nsp [at] puck<mailto:juniper-nsp [at] puck>>
Subject: Re: [j-nsp] mx240 vs asr 9006

Note that the MX requires an MS-DPC card in order to to NetFlow v9.

Serge
________________________________
From: Doug Hanks <dhanks [at] juniper<mailto:dhanks [at] juniper>>
To: Peter <piotr.1234 [at] interia<mailto:piotr.1234 [at] interia>>; "juniper-nsp [at] puck<mailto:juniper-nsp [at] puck>" <juniper-nsp [at] puck<mailto:juniper-nsp [at] puck>>
Sent: Tuesday, April 24, 2012 1:41:24 PM
Subject: Re: [j-nsp] mx240 vs asr 9006

The last time I looked the ASR9K still had a small FIB and tapped out at
around 500K.

Thank you,

--
Doug Hanks - JNCIE-ENT #213, JNCIE-SP #875
Sr. Systems Engineer
Juniper Networks


On 4/24/12 8:55 AM, "Peter" <piotr.1234 [at] interia<mailto:piotr.1234 [at] interia>> wrote:

>Hi
>
>I have to upgrade my bgp routers, i have budget for two options:
>
>1.
>- bundle: MX240BASE-AC-HIGH, MPC1-3D-R-B, MIC-3D-20XGE-SFP,
>MIC-3D-2XGE-XFP; configurable RE, SCB, and PEM
>- better routing engine RE-S-1800X2-8G-UPG-BB + jflow license ( netflow
>v9 or ipfix) S-ACCT-JFLOW-IN
>
>or
>
>2. asr 9006
>- A9K-RSP-4G
>- A9K-MOD80-TR, 80G Modular Linecard, Packet Transport Optimized
>- license for l3 vpn
>
>the price is almost the same. I need:
>
>- ports: from 4x10G line to max 8x10G, line rate
>- 3 virtual routers with full ip routing table v4
>- 10 virtual routers with ca 10k prefix in routing table v4
>- v6
>- up to 12 full bgp feed
>- netflow v9 or ipfix, sampling max 100/s
>- define counters on logical and physical interfaces, count many times
>to the same counter, one packet could be count to different counters in
>next term
>- access to counters via snmp
>- independent control plane and data plane
>- and few others things on bgp edge
>
>which model will be better ?
>thanks for some advice
>
>regards
>Peter
>
>_______________________________________________
>juniper-nsp mailing list juniper-nsp [at] puck<mailto:juniper-nsp [at] puck>
>https://puck.nether.net/mailman/listinfo/juniper-nsp


_______________________________________________
juniper-nsp mailing list juniper-nsp [at] puck<mailto:juniper-nsp [at] puck>
https://puck.nether.net/mailman/listinfo/juniper-nsp



_______________________________________________
juniper-nsp mailing list juniper-nsp [at] puck
https://puck.nether.net/mailman/listinfo/juniper-nsp


philxor at gmail

Apr 24, 2012, 4:31 PM

Post #5 of 17 (5000 views)
Permalink
Re: mx240 vs asr 9006 [In reply to]

If you are using the newer RSP440 and newer linecards it is substantially higher, 2M+ IPv4. But you are right the first gen cards the original poster had speced only support 512K in the FIB and we are at 400K+ now in the Internet table.

Phil

On Apr 24, 2012, at 12:41 PM, Doug Hanks <as [at] juniper> wrote:

> The last time I looked the ASR9K still had a small FIB and tapped out at
> around 500K.
>
> Thank you,
>
> --
> Doug Hanks - JNCIE-ENT #213, JNCIE-SP #875
> Sr. Systems Engineer
> Juniper Networks
>
>
> On 4/24/12 8:55 AM, "Peter" <piotr.1234 [at] interia> wrote:
>
>> Hi
>>
>> I have to upgrade my bgp routers, i have budget for two options:
>>
>> 1.
>> - bundle: MX240BASE-AC-HIGH, MPC1-3D-R-B, MIC-3D-20XGE-SFP,
>> MIC-3D-2XGE-XFP; configurable RE, SCB, and PEM
>> - better routing engine RE-S-1800X2-8G-UPG-BB + jflow license ( netflow
>> v9 or ipfix) S-ACCT-JFLOW-IN
>>
>> or
>>
>> 2. asr 9006
>> - A9K-RSP-4G
>> - A9K-MOD80-TR, 80G Modular Linecard, Packet Transport Optimized
>> - license for l3 vpn
>>
>> the price is almost the same. I need:
>>
>> - ports: from 4x10G line to max 8x10G, line rate
>> - 3 virtual routers with full ip routing table v4
>> - 10 virtual routers with ca 10k prefix in routing table v4
>> - v6
>> - up to 12 full bgp feed
>> - netflow v9 or ipfix, sampling max 100/s
>> - define counters on logical and physical interfaces, count many times
>> to the same counter, one packet could be count to different counters in
>> next term
>> - access to counters via snmp
>> - independent control plane and data plane
>> - and few others things on bgp edge
>>
>> which model will be better ?
>> thanks for some advice
>>
>> regards
>> Peter
>>
>> _______________________________________________
>> juniper-nsp mailing list juniper-nsp [at] puck
>> https://puck.nether.net/mailman/listinfo/juniper-nsp
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> juniper-nsp mailing list juniper-nsp [at] puck
> https://puck.nether.net/mailman/listinfo/juniper-nsp

_______________________________________________
juniper-nsp mailing list juniper-nsp [at] puck
https://puck.nether.net/mailman/listinfo/juniper-nsp


skeeve+junipernsp at eintellego

Apr 24, 2012, 4:45 PM

Post #6 of 17 (5003 views)
Permalink
Re: mx240 vs asr 9006 [In reply to]

Does that put the cost comparison out of alignment?

*Skeeve Stevens, CEO*
eintellego Pty Ltd
skeeve [at] eintellego ; www.eintellego.net <http://www.eintellego.net.au>

Phone: 1300 753 383 ; Fax: (+612) 8572 9954

Cell +61 (0)414 753 383 ; skype://skeeve

facebook.com/eintellego

twitter.com/networkceoau ; www.linkedin.com/in/skeeve

PO Box 7726, Baulkham Hills, NSW 1755 Australia

The Experts Who The Experts Call
Juniper - Cisco – Brocade - IBM



On Wed, Apr 25, 2012 at 09:31, Phil Bedard <philxor [at] gmail> wrote:

> If you are using the newer RSP440 and newer linecards it is substantially
> higher, 2M+ IPv4. But you are right the first gen cards the original
> poster had speced only support 512K in the FIB and we are at 400K+ now in
> the Internet table.
>
> Phil
>
> On Apr 24, 2012, at 12:41 PM, Doug Hanks <as [at] juniper> wrote:
>
> > The last time I looked the ASR9K still had a small FIB and tapped out at
> > around 500K.
> >
> > Thank you,
> >
> > --
> > Doug Hanks - JNCIE-ENT #213, JNCIE-SP #875
> > Sr. Systems Engineer
> > Juniper Networks
> >
> >
> > On 4/24/12 8:55 AM, "Peter" <piotr.1234 [at] interia> wrote:
> >
> >> Hi
> >>
> >> I have to upgrade my bgp routers, i have budget for two options:
> >>
> >> 1.
> >> - bundle: MX240BASE-AC-HIGH, MPC1-3D-R-B, MIC-3D-20XGE-SFP,
> >> MIC-3D-2XGE-XFP; configurable RE, SCB, and PEM
> >> - better routing engine RE-S-1800X2-8G-UPG-BB + jflow license ( netflow
> >> v9 or ipfix) S-ACCT-JFLOW-IN
> >>
> >> or
> >>
> >> 2. asr 9006
> >> - A9K-RSP-4G
> >> - A9K-MOD80-TR, 80G Modular Linecard, Packet Transport Optimized
> >> - license for l3 vpn
> >>
> >> the price is almost the same. I need:
> >>
> >> - ports: from 4x10G line to max 8x10G, line rate
> >> - 3 virtual routers with full ip routing table v4
> >> - 10 virtual routers with ca 10k prefix in routing table v4
> >> - v6
> >> - up to 12 full bgp feed
> >> - netflow v9 or ipfix, sampling max 100/s
> >> - define counters on logical and physical interfaces, count many times
> >> to the same counter, one packet could be count to different counters in
> >> next term
> >> - access to counters via snmp
> >> - independent control plane and data plane
> >> - and few others things on bgp edge
> >>
> >> which model will be better ?
> >> thanks for some advice
> >>
> >> regards
> >> Peter
> >>
> >> _______________________________________________
> >> juniper-nsp mailing list juniper-nsp [at] puck
> >> https://puck.nether.net/mailman/listinfo/juniper-nsp
> >
> >
> > _______________________________________________
> > juniper-nsp mailing list juniper-nsp [at] puck
> > https://puck.nether.net/mailman/listinfo/juniper-nsp
>
> _______________________________________________
> juniper-nsp mailing list juniper-nsp [at] puck
> https://puck.nether.net/mailman/listinfo/juniper-nsp
>
_______________________________________________
juniper-nsp mailing list juniper-nsp [at] puck
https://puck.nether.net/mailman/listinfo/juniper-nsp


robertson.corey at gmail

Apr 24, 2012, 6:06 PM

Post #7 of 17 (5016 views)
Permalink
Re: mx240 vs asr 9006 [In reply to]

Also, I might be wrong, but doesn't the RSP4G limit the per slot cap to 40g in a single RSP (failure) scenario? That rules out your max 8x10G line rate.

Again I could be wrong, I'm going off of memory.

On Apr 24, 2012, at 6:45 PM, Skeeve Stevens <skeeve+junipernsp [at] eintellego> wrote:

> Does that put the cost comparison out of alignment?
>
> *Skeeve Stevens, CEO*
> eintellego Pty Ltd
> skeeve [at] eintellego ; www.eintellego.net <http://www.eintellego.net.au>
>
> Phone: 1300 753 383 ; Fax: (+612) 8572 9954
>
> Cell +61 (0)414 753 383 ; skype://skeeve
>
> facebook.com/eintellego
>
> twitter.com/networkceoau ; www.linkedin.com/in/skeeve
>
> PO Box 7726, Baulkham Hills, NSW 1755 Australia
>
> The Experts Who The Experts Call
> Juniper - Cisco – Brocade - IBM
>
>
>
> On Wed, Apr 25, 2012 at 09:31, Phil Bedard <philxor [at] gmail> wrote:
>
>> If you are using the newer RSP440 and newer linecards it is substantially
>> higher, 2M+ IPv4. But you are right the first gen cards the original
>> poster had speced only support 512K in the FIB and we are at 400K+ now in
>> the Internet table.
>>
>> Phil
>>
>> On Apr 24, 2012, at 12:41 PM, Doug Hanks <as [at] juniper> wrote:
>>
>>> The last time I looked the ASR9K still had a small FIB and tapped out at
>>> around 500K.
>>>
>>> Thank you,
>>>
>>> --
>>> Doug Hanks - JNCIE-ENT #213, JNCIE-SP #875
>>> Sr. Systems Engineer
>>> Juniper Networks
>>>
>>>
>>> On 4/24/12 8:55 AM, "Peter" <piotr.1234 [at] interia> wrote:
>>>
>>>> Hi
>>>>
>>>> I have to upgrade my bgp routers, i have budget for two options:
>>>>
>>>> 1.
>>>> - bundle: MX240BASE-AC-HIGH, MPC1-3D-R-B, MIC-3D-20XGE-SFP,
>>>> MIC-3D-2XGE-XFP; configurable RE, SCB, and PEM
>>>> - better routing engine RE-S-1800X2-8G-UPG-BB + jflow license ( netflow
>>>> v9 or ipfix) S-ACCT-JFLOW-IN
>>>>
>>>> or
>>>>
>>>> 2. asr 9006
>>>> - A9K-RSP-4G
>>>> - A9K-MOD80-TR, 80G Modular Linecard, Packet Transport Optimized
>>>> - license for l3 vpn
>>>>
>>>> the price is almost the same. I need:
>>>>
>>>> - ports: from 4x10G line to max 8x10G, line rate
>>>> - 3 virtual routers with full ip routing table v4
>>>> - 10 virtual routers with ca 10k prefix in routing table v4
>>>> - v6
>>>> - up to 12 full bgp feed
>>>> - netflow v9 or ipfix, sampling max 100/s
>>>> - define counters on logical and physical interfaces, count many times
>>>> to the same counter, one packet could be count to different counters in
>>>> next term
>>>> - access to counters via snmp
>>>> - independent control plane and data plane
>>>> - and few others things on bgp edge
>>>>
>>>> which model will be better ?
>>>> thanks for some advice
>>>>
>>>> regards
>>>> Peter
>>>>
>>>> _______________________________________________
>>>> juniper-nsp mailing list juniper-nsp [at] puck
>>>> https://puck.nether.net/mailman/listinfo/juniper-nsp
>>>
>>>
>>> _______________________________________________
>>> juniper-nsp mailing list juniper-nsp [at] puck
>>> https://puck.nether.net/mailman/listinfo/juniper-nsp
>>
>> _______________________________________________
>> juniper-nsp mailing list juniper-nsp [at] puck
>> https://puck.nether.net/mailman/listinfo/juniper-nsp
>>
> _______________________________________________
> juniper-nsp mailing list juniper-nsp [at] puck
> https://puck.nether.net/mailman/listinfo/juniper-nsp

_______________________________________________
juniper-nsp mailing list juniper-nsp [at] puck
https://puck.nether.net/mailman/listinfo/juniper-nsp


philxor at gmail

Apr 24, 2012, 6:49 PM

Post #8 of 17 (5006 views)
Permalink
Re: mx240 vs asr 9006 [In reply to]

No it is 80G per slot redundant. The older 8T 8x10G cards are not quite line rate at all packet sizes but are in an IMIX scenario. Cisco and juniper both have been playing pretty loose with the term line rate lately.

Pricing wise they do have an 80G modular card which has a 4x10G and 20x1G module which is probably right around the same cost as the MX stuff. The RSP440 also has a couple 10G ports if you want to use them...

Phil

On Apr 24, 2012, at 9:06 PM, Corey Robertson <robertson.corey [at] gmail> wrote:

> Also, I might be wrong, but doesn't the RSP4G limit the per slot cap to 40g in a single RSP (failure) scenario? That rules out your max 8x10G line rate.
>
> Again I could be wrong, I'm going off of memory.
>
> On Apr 24, 2012, at 6:45 PM, Skeeve Stevens <skeeve+junipernsp [at] eintellego> wrote:
>
>> Does that put the cost comparison out of alignment?
>>
>> *Skeeve Stevens, CEO*
>> eintellego Pty Ltd
>> skeeve [at] eintellego ; www.eintellego.net <http://www.eintellego.net.au>
>>
>> Phone: 1300 753 383 ; Fax: (+612) 8572 9954
>>
>> Cell +61 (0)414 753 383 ; skype://skeeve
>>
>> facebook.com/eintellego
>>
>> twitter.com/networkceoau ; www.linkedin.com/in/skeeve
>>
>> PO Box 7726, Baulkham Hills, NSW 1755 Australia
>>
>> The Experts Who The Experts Call
>> Juniper - Cisco – Brocade - IBM
>>
>>
>>
>> On Wed, Apr 25, 2012 at 09:31, Phil Bedard <philxor [at] gmail> wrote:
>>
>>> If you are using the newer RSP440 and newer linecards it is substantially
>>> higher, 2M+ IPv4. But you are right the first gen cards the original
>>> poster had speced only support 512K in the FIB and we are at 400K+ now in
>>> the Internet table.
>>>
>>> Phil
>>>
>>> On Apr 24, 2012, at 12:41 PM, Doug Hanks <as [at] juniper> wrote:
>>>
>>>> The last time I looked the ASR9K still had a small FIB and tapped out at
>>>> around 500K.
>>>>
>>>> Thank you,
>>>>
>>>> --
>>>> Doug Hanks - JNCIE-ENT #213, JNCIE-SP #875
>>>> Sr. Systems Engineer
>>>> Juniper Networks
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> On 4/24/12 8:55 AM, "Peter" <piotr.1234 [at] interia> wrote:
>>>>
>>>>> Hi
>>>>>
>>>>> I have to upgrade my bgp routers, i have budget for two options:
>>>>>
>>>>> 1.
>>>>> - bundle: MX240BASE-AC-HIGH, MPC1-3D-R-B, MIC-3D-20XGE-SFP,
>>>>> MIC-3D-2XGE-XFP; configurable RE, SCB, and PEM
>>>>> - better routing engine RE-S-1800X2-8G-UPG-BB + jflow license ( netflow
>>>>> v9 or ipfix) S-ACCT-JFLOW-IN
>>>>>
>>>>> or
>>>>>
>>>>> 2. asr 9006
>>>>> - A9K-RSP-4G
>>>>> - A9K-MOD80-TR, 80G Modular Linecard, Packet Transport Optimized
>>>>> - license for l3 vpn
>>>>>
>>>>> the price is almost the same. I need:
>>>>>
>>>>> - ports: from 4x10G line to max 8x10G, line rate
>>>>> - 3 virtual routers with full ip routing table v4
>>>>> - 10 virtual routers with ca 10k prefix in routing table v4
>>>>> - v6
>>>>> - up to 12 full bgp feed
>>>>> - netflow v9 or ipfix, sampling max 100/s
>>>>> - define counters on logical and physical interfaces, count many times
>>>>> to the same counter, one packet could be count to different counters in
>>>>> next term
>>>>> - access to counters via snmp
>>>>> - independent control plane and data plane
>>>>> - and few others things on bgp edge
>>>>>
>>>>> which model will be better ?
>>>>> thanks for some advice
>>>>>
>>>>> regards
>>>>> Peter
>>>>>
>>>>> _______________________________________________
>>>>> juniper-nsp mailing list juniper-nsp [at] puck
>>>>> https://puck.nether.net/mailman/listinfo/juniper-nsp
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> _______________________________________________
>>>> juniper-nsp mailing list juniper-nsp [at] puck
>>>> https://puck.nether.net/mailman/listinfo/juniper-nsp
>>>
>>> _______________________________________________
>>> juniper-nsp mailing list juniper-nsp [at] puck
>>> https://puck.nether.net/mailman/listinfo/juniper-nsp
>>>
>> _______________________________________________
>> juniper-nsp mailing list juniper-nsp [at] puck
>> https://puck.nether.net/mailman/listinfo/juniper-nsp

_______________________________________________
juniper-nsp mailing list juniper-nsp [at] puck
https://puck.nether.net/mailman/listinfo/juniper-nsp


keegan.holley at sungard

Apr 24, 2012, 7:01 PM

Post #9 of 17 (5011 views)
Permalink
Re: mx240 vs asr 9006 [In reply to]

Go with the 480 if you go juniper. The cost difference between chassis is
negligible even if you won't use the extra slots for some time. Haven't
played with the cisco option much so I can't vouch for the 9k. Your
environment matters as well. What your engineers are comfortable with,
what your automation and backend systems suport, etc. The boxes also
differ in terms of horsepower, number of routes supported,port density.
Are any of these limits important to you? If they are really
interchangeable in your environment I'd probably go with the cheaper of the
two.



2012/4/24 Peter <piotr.1234 [at] interia>

> Hi
>
> I have to upgrade my bgp routers, i have budget for two options:
>
> 1.
> - bundle: MX240BASE-AC-HIGH, MPC1-3D-R-B, MIC-3D-20XGE-SFP,
> MIC-3D-2XGE-XFP; configurable RE, SCB, and PEM
> - better routing engine RE-S-1800X2-8G-UPG-BB + jflow license ( netflow v9
> or ipfix) S-ACCT-JFLOW-IN
>
> or
>
> 2. asr 9006
> - A9K-RSP-4G
> - A9K-MOD80-TR, 80G Modular Linecard, Packet Transport Optimized
> - license for l3 vpn
>
> the price is almost the same. I need:
>
> - ports: from 4x10G line to max 8x10G, line rate
> - 3 virtual routers with full ip routing table v4
> - 10 virtual routers with ca 10k prefix in routing table v4
> - v6
> - up to 12 full bgp feed
> - netflow v9 or ipfix, sampling max 100/s
> - define counters on logical and physical interfaces, count many times to
> the same counter, one packet could be count to different counters in next
> term
> - access to counters via snmp
> - independent control plane and data plane
> - and few others things on bgp edge
>
> which model will be better ?
> thanks for some advice
>
> regards
> Peter
>
> _______________________________________________
> juniper-nsp mailing list juniper-nsp [at] puck
> https://puck.nether.net/mailman/listinfo/juniper-nsp
>
>
_______________________________________________
juniper-nsp mailing list juniper-nsp [at] puck
https://puck.nether.net/mailman/listinfo/juniper-nsp


ObrienH at missouri

Apr 24, 2012, 7:10 PM

Post #10 of 17 (5004 views)
Permalink
Re: mx240 vs asr 9006 [In reply to]

I agree with that. I looked at the ASR the other day. the 6 slot chassis is only 4 for line cards. the first two are taken.
The 480 allows for six + 2xSCB/RE


On Apr 24, 2012, at 9:01 PM, Keegan Holley wrote:

> Go with the 480 if you go juniper. The cost difference between chassis is
> negligible even if you won't use the extra slots for some time. Haven't
> played with the cisco option much so I can't vouch for the 9k. Your
> environment matters as well. What your engineers are comfortable with,
> what your automation and backend systems suport, etc. The boxes also
> differ in terms of horsepower, number of routes supported,port density.
> Are any of these limits important to you? If they are really
> interchangeable in your environment I'd probably go with the cheaper of the
> two.
>
>
>
> 2012/4/24 Peter <piotr.1234 [at] interia>
>
>> Hi
>>
>> I have to upgrade my bgp routers, i have budget for two options:
>>
>> 1.
>> - bundle: MX240BASE-AC-HIGH, MPC1-3D-R-B, MIC-3D-20XGE-SFP,
>> MIC-3D-2XGE-XFP; configurable RE, SCB, and PEM
>> - better routing engine RE-S-1800X2-8G-UPG-BB + jflow license ( netflow v9
>> or ipfix) S-ACCT-JFLOW-IN
>>
>> or
>>
>> 2. asr 9006
>> - A9K-RSP-4G
>> - A9K-MOD80-TR, 80G Modular Linecard, Packet Transport Optimized
>> - license for l3 vpn
>>
>> the price is almost the same. I need:
>>
>> - ports: from 4x10G line to max 8x10G, line rate
>> - 3 virtual routers with full ip routing table v4
>> - 10 virtual routers with ca 10k prefix in routing table v4
>> - v6
>> - up to 12 full bgp feed
>> - netflow v9 or ipfix, sampling max 100/s
>> - define counters on logical and physical interfaces, count many times to
>> the same counter, one packet could be count to different counters in next
>> term
>> - access to counters via snmp
>> - independent control plane and data plane
>> - and few others things on bgp edge
>>
>> which model will be better ?
>> thanks for some advice
>>
>> regards
>> Peter
>>
>> _______________________________________________
>> juniper-nsp mailing list juniper-nsp [at] puck
>> https://puck.nether.net/mailman/listinfo/juniper-nsp
>>
>>
> _______________________________________________
> juniper-nsp mailing list juniper-nsp [at] puck
> https://puck.nether.net/mailman/listinfo/juniper-nsp


_______________________________________________
juniper-nsp mailing list juniper-nsp [at] puck
https://puck.nether.net/mailman/listinfo/juniper-nsp


sthaug at nethelp

Apr 24, 2012, 10:59 PM

Post #11 of 17 (5012 views)
Permalink
Re: mx240 vs asr 9006 [In reply to]

> The MX using Trio/MPC line cards support inline IPFIX for flow statistics. No services card required. Just have to be sure your collector supports it.

But they still need a (rather expensive) license?

Steinar Haug, Nethelp consulting, sthaug [at] nethelp
_______________________________________________
juniper-nsp mailing list juniper-nsp [at] puck
https://puck.nether.net/mailman/listinfo/juniper-nsp


p.mayers at imperial

Apr 25, 2012, 1:35 AM

Post #12 of 17 (5013 views)
Permalink
Re: mx240 vs asr 9006 [In reply to]

On 04/24/2012 09:58 PM, Doug Hanks wrote:
> The MX using Trio/MPC line cards support inline IPFIX for flow
> statistics. No services card required. Just have to be sure your
> collector supports it.

I believe at the present time, inline IPFIX is IPv4-only?
_______________________________________________
juniper-nsp mailing list juniper-nsp [at] puck
https://puck.nether.net/mailman/listinfo/juniper-nsp


euang+juniper-nsp at lists

Apr 25, 2012, 3:34 AM

Post #13 of 17 (5009 views)
Permalink
Re: mx240 vs asr 9006 [In reply to]

On Wed, Apr 25, 2012 at 09:35:03AM +0100, Phil Mayers wrote:
> On 04/24/2012 09:58 PM, Doug Hanks wrote:
>> The MX using Trio/MPC line cards support inline IPFIX for flow
>> statistics. No services card required. Just have to be sure your
>> collector supports it.
>
> I believe at the present time, inline IPFIX is IPv4-only?

I can't believe I'm about to say this but...
"IPv6 is listed as supported in 12.1 (released)"

Not tested (can't imagine why).

I thought I had been told MPLS was in too, but don't see it.

--
Euan Galloway
_______________________________________________
juniper-nsp mailing list juniper-nsp [at] puck
https://puck.nether.net/mailman/listinfo/juniper-nsp


bradd at ntt

Apr 25, 2012, 6:33 AM

Post #14 of 17 (5044 views)
Permalink
Re: mx240 vs asr 9006 [In reply to]

On Tue, Apr 24, 2012 at 07:31:13PM -0400, Phil Bedard wrote:
>If you are using the newer RSP440 and newer linecards it is substantially higher, 2M+ IPv4. But you are right the first gen cards the original poster had speced only support 512K in the FIB and we are at 400K+ now in the Internet table.

You can configure the scale profile on the trident based cards to support 1M
routes on RSP2. you do sacrifice some L2 scale though, iirc.

default —efficient for deployments that require large Layer 2 MAC tables (up to 512,000 entries) and a relatively small number of Layer 3 routes (less than 512,000).

l3 —efficient for deployments that require more Layer 3 routes (up to 1 million) and smaller Layer 2 MAC tables (less than 128,000 entries).

l3xl —efficient for deployments that require a very large number of Layer 3 routes (up to 1.3 million) and minimal Layer 2 functionality. Note that the support for up to 1.3 million routes is split into IPv4 scaled support and IPv4/IPV6 scaled support. You can configure up to 1.3 million IPv4 routes, or up to 1 million IPv4 routes with 128,000 IPv6 routes.

http://www.cisco.com/en/US/docs/routers/asr9000/software/asr9k_r4.2/system_management/configuration/guide/b_sysman_cg42asr9k_chapter_01.html#task_3A082F6CD31D4A238070C3CD7279E67A

-b

>
>Phil
>
>On Apr 24, 2012, at 12:41 PM, Doug Hanks <as [at] juniper> wrote:
>
>> The last time I looked the ASR9K still had a small FIB and tapped out at
>> around 500K.
>>
>> Thank you,
>>
>> --
>> Doug Hanks - JNCIE-ENT #213, JNCIE-SP #875
>> Sr. Systems Engineer
>> Juniper Networks
>>
>>
>> On 4/24/12 8:55 AM, "Peter" <piotr.1234 [at] interia> wrote:
>>
>>> Hi
>>>
>>> I have to upgrade my bgp routers, i have budget for two options:
>>>
>>> 1.
>>> - bundle: MX240BASE-AC-HIGH, MPC1-3D-R-B, MIC-3D-20XGE-SFP,
>>> MIC-3D-2XGE-XFP; configurable RE, SCB, and PEM
>>> - better routing engine RE-S-1800X2-8G-UPG-BB + jflow license ( netflow
>>> v9 or ipfix) S-ACCT-JFLOW-IN
>>>
>>> or
>>>
>>> 2. asr 9006
>>> - A9K-RSP-4G
>>> - A9K-MOD80-TR, 80G Modular Linecard, Packet Transport Optimized
>>> - license for l3 vpn
>>>
>>> the price is almost the same. I need:
>>>
>>> - ports: from 4x10G line to max 8x10G, line rate
>>> - 3 virtual routers with full ip routing table v4
>>> - 10 virtual routers with ca 10k prefix in routing table v4
>>> - v6
>>> - up to 12 full bgp feed
>>> - netflow v9 or ipfix, sampling max 100/s
>>> - define counters on logical and physical interfaces, count many times
>>> to the same counter, one packet could be count to different counters in
>>> next term
>>> - access to counters via snmp
>>> - independent control plane and data plane
>>> - and few others things on bgp edge
>>>
>>> which model will be better ?
>>> thanks for some advice
>>>
>>> regards
>>> Peter
>>>
>>> _______________________________________________
>>> juniper-nsp mailing list juniper-nsp [at] puck
>>> https://puck.nether.net/mailman/listinfo/juniper-nsp
>>
>>
>> _______________________________________________
>> juniper-nsp mailing list juniper-nsp [at] puck
>> https://puck.nether.net/mailman/listinfo/juniper-nsp
>
>_______________________________________________
>juniper-nsp mailing list juniper-nsp [at] puck
>https://puck.nether.net/mailman/listinfo/juniper-nsp
_______________________________________________
juniper-nsp mailing list juniper-nsp [at] puck
https://puck.nether.net/mailman/listinfo/juniper-nsp


philxor at gmail

Apr 25, 2012, 6:54 AM

Post #15 of 17 (5039 views)
Permalink
Re: mx240 vs asr 9006 [In reply to]

Yes thanks for mentioning that.

My opinion would be to use a MX480 like someone else said just due to the increased slot capacity, over the 9006 or 240.

Phil

On Apr 25, 2012, at 9:33 AM, brad dreisbach <bradd [at] ntt> wrote:

> On Tue, Apr 24, 2012 at 07:31:13PM -0400, Phil Bedard wrote:
>> If you are using the newer RSP440 and newer linecards it is substantially higher, 2M+ IPv4. But you are right the first gen cards the original poster had speced only support 512K in the FIB and we are at 400K+ now in the Internet table.
>
> You can configure the scale profile on the trident based cards to support 1M
> routes on RSP2. you do sacrifice some L2 scale though, iirc.
>
> default —efficient for deployments that require large Layer 2 MAC tables (up to 512,000 entries) and a relatively small number of Layer 3 routes (less than 512,000).
>
> l3 —efficient for deployments that require more Layer 3 routes (up to 1 million) and smaller Layer 2 MAC tables (less than 128,000 entries).
>
> l3xl —efficient for deployments that require a very large number of Layer 3 routes (up to 1.3 million) and minimal Layer 2 functionality. Note that the support for up to 1.3 million routes is split into IPv4 scaled support and IPv4/IPV6 scaled support. You can configure up to 1.3 million IPv4 routes, or up to 1 million IPv4 routes with 128,000 IPv6 routes.
> http://www.cisco.com/en/US/docs/routers/asr9000/software/asr9k_r4.2/system_management/configuration/guide/b_sysman_cg42asr9k_chapter_01.html#task_3A082F6CD31D4A238070C3CD7279E67A
>
> -b
>
>>
>> Phil
>>
>> On Apr 24, 2012, at 12:41 PM, Doug Hanks <as [at] juniper> wrote:
>>
>>> The last time I looked the ASR9K still had a small FIB and tapped out at
>>> around 500K.
>>>
>>> Thank you,
>>>
>>> --
>>> Doug Hanks - JNCIE-ENT #213, JNCIE-SP #875
>>> Sr. Systems Engineer
>>> Juniper Networks
>>>
>>>
>>> On 4/24/12 8:55 AM, "Peter" <piotr.1234 [at] interia> wrote:
>>>
>>>> Hi
>>>>
>>>> I have to upgrade my bgp routers, i have budget for two options:
>>>>
>>>> 1.
>>>> - bundle: MX240BASE-AC-HIGH, MPC1-3D-R-B, MIC-3D-20XGE-SFP,
>>>> MIC-3D-2XGE-XFP; configurable RE, SCB, and PEM
>>>> - better routing engine RE-S-1800X2-8G-UPG-BB + jflow license ( netflow
>>>> v9 or ipfix) S-ACCT-JFLOW-IN
>>>>
>>>> or
>>>>
>>>> 2. asr 9006
>>>> - A9K-RSP-4G
>>>> - A9K-MOD80-TR, 80G Modular Linecard, Packet Transport Optimized
>>>> - license for l3 vpn
>>>>
>>>> the price is almost the same. I need:
>>>>
>>>> - ports: from 4x10G line to max 8x10G, line rate
>>>> - 3 virtual routers with full ip routing table v4
>>>> - 10 virtual routers with ca 10k prefix in routing table v4
>>>> - v6
>>>> - up to 12 full bgp feed
>>>> - netflow v9 or ipfix, sampling max 100/s
>>>> - define counters on logical and physical interfaces, count many times
>>>> to the same counter, one packet could be count to different counters in
>>>> next term
>>>> - access to counters via snmp
>>>> - independent control plane and data plane
>>>> - and few others things on bgp edge
>>>>
>>>> which model will be better ?
>>>> thanks for some advice
>>>>
>>>> regards
>>>> Peter
>>>>
>>>> _______________________________________________
>>>> juniper-nsp mailing list juniper-nsp [at] puck
>>>> https://puck.nether.net/mailman/listinfo/juniper-nsp
>>>
>>>
>>> _______________________________________________
>>> juniper-nsp mailing list juniper-nsp [at] puck
>>> https://puck.nether.net/mailman/listinfo/juniper-nsp
>>
>> _______________________________________________
>> juniper-nsp mailing list juniper-nsp [at] puck
>> https://puck.nether.net/mailman/listinfo/juniper-nsp

_______________________________________________
juniper-nsp mailing list juniper-nsp [at] puck
https://puck.nether.net/mailman/listinfo/juniper-nsp


mark.tinka at seacom

May 20, 2012, 12:51 PM

Post #16 of 17 (4897 views)
Permalink
Re: mx240 vs asr 9006 [In reply to]

On Wednesday, April 25, 2012 03:54:56 PM Phil Bedard wrote:

> Yes thanks for mentioning that.
>
> My opinion would be to use a MX480 like someone else said
> just due to the increased slot capacity, over the 9006
> or 240.

For me, the extra 2x slots on the MX480 wouldn't be a
compelling-enough reason to choose it over the ASR9006. Like
someone mentioned earlier, chassis pricing is so negligible
that it makes more sense to go for an MX480 over an MX240
like it would to go for an ASR9010 over an ASR9006. In our
case, it's mostly come down to how much we want to scale in
the space that we (don't have), which is why an MX240 has
never made any sense to us, just like the ASR1004.

Moroever, both the MX and ASR9000 chassis' are shipping
faster line cards that mean you can pack more bandwidth into
a single slot by the time you think about scaling across the
entire chassis.

Having operated both platforms in the same network, while
I'll always have both vendors in my network as principle, my
reasons to choose one over the other would be:

o I'd prefer an ASR9000 over the MX because of the
"more intuitive" ingress packet marking on the
Cisco. Juniper can now do it on the Trio line
cards with firewall filters, but it doesn't
support marking of EXP bits. If only Juniper -
despite the numerous times I've asked - could
implement the ToS Translation Tables feature that
they do for the IQ2 and IQ2E PIC's for the M-
series routers, on the MX line, it would bring
them inline with Cisco on this platform (Juniper's
classic egress marking/rewriting has always been
awkward, IMHO).

o I'd prefer the MX because it implements NG-MVPN,
while Cisco are still mucking about, re-enacting
the LDP vs. BGP fiasco of old.

o I'd prefer the the Cisco if I had to mix the
classic and newer line cards in the same chassis,
as (at least for a long while), mixing DPC's and
MPC's was problematic. Word is that this is no
longer an issue - I'm due to test.

o I'd prefer the Juniper because Cisco make you pay
for ridiculous licenses just to deploy l3vpn's on
the ASR9000.

You get the point... but:

o Either router would be fine for basic IPv4, IPv6
and MPLS services.

o Either router would be fine for PE Aggregation
scenarios in Metro-E networks.

o Either router would be fine if I wanted to add
non-Ethernet line cards to it (the MX is now
sporting these, even though I'm wary it may not be
mature yet).

o Either router would be fine if I wanted to run
100Gbps Ethernet ports.

Hope this helps.

Mark.
_______________________________________________
juniper-nsp mailing list juniper-nsp [at] puck
https://puck.nether.net/mailman/listinfo/juniper-nsp


dwinkworth at att

May 21, 2012, 8:12 PM

Post #17 of 17 (4900 views)
Permalink
Re: mx240 vs asr 9006 [In reply to]

Pro JUNOS:

I would add that JUNOS I think has much better automation features.  Also there are some interesting features on the MX that make deploying "appliance-in-the-cloud" setups easier to deploy (BGP capable appliance between MPLS LERs).

I generally think VPLS is easier in JUNOS.

Pro Cisco:

MPLS/VRF aware "foo."  Like NAT, SSL, IPSec/GET, and just a load of other features.  Although I'm not sure how much of this applies to the 9k..


 
Derick Winkworth
CCIE #15672 (RS, SP), JNCIE-M #721
http://packetpushers.net/author/dwinkworth/


________________________________
From: Mark Tinka <mark.tinka [at] seacom>
To: juniper-nsp [at] puck
Sent: Sunday, May 20, 2012 2:51 PM
Subject: Re: [j-nsp] mx240 vs asr 9006

On Wednesday, April 25, 2012 03:54:56 PM Phil Bedard wrote:

> Yes thanks for mentioning that.
>
> My opinion would be to use a MX480 like someone else said
> just due to the increased slot capacity, over the 9006
> or 240.

For me, the extra 2x slots on the MX480 wouldn't be a
compelling-enough reason to choose it over the ASR9006. Like
someone mentioned earlier, chassis pricing is so negligible
that it makes more sense to go for an MX480 over an MX240
like it would to go for an ASR9010 over an ASR9006. In our
case, it's mostly come down to how much we want to scale in
the space that we (don't have), which is why an MX240 has
never made any sense to us, just like the ASR1004.

Moroever, both the MX and ASR9000 chassis' are shipping
faster line cards that mean you can pack more bandwidth into
a single slot by the time you think about scaling across the
entire chassis.

Having operated both platforms in the same network, while
I'll always have both vendors in my network as principle, my
reasons to choose one over the other would be:

    o I'd prefer an ASR9000 over the MX because of the
      "more intuitive" ingress packet marking on the
      Cisco. Juniper can now do it on the Trio line
      cards with firewall filters, but it doesn't
      support marking of EXP bits. If only Juniper -
      despite the numerous times I've asked - could
      implement the ToS Translation Tables feature that
      they do for the IQ2 and IQ2E PIC's for the M-
      series routers, on the MX line, it would bring
      them inline with Cisco on this platform (Juniper's
      classic egress marking/rewriting has always been
      awkward, IMHO).

    o I'd prefer the MX because it implements NG-MVPN,
      while Cisco are still mucking about, re-enacting
      the LDP vs. BGP fiasco of old.

    o I'd prefer the the Cisco if I had to mix the
      classic and newer line cards in the same chassis,
      as (at least for a long while), mixing DPC's and
      MPC's was problematic. Word is that this is no
      longer an issue - I'm due to test.

    o I'd prefer the Juniper because Cisco make you pay
      for ridiculous licenses just to deploy l3vpn's on
      the ASR9000.

You get the point... but:

    o Either router would be fine for basic IPv4, IPv6
      and MPLS services.

    o Either router would be fine for PE Aggregation
      scenarios in Metro-E networks.

    o Either router would be fine if I wanted to add
      non-Ethernet line cards to it (the MX is now
      sporting these, even though I'm wary it may not be
      mature yet).

    o Either router would be fine if I wanted to run
      100Gbps Ethernet ports.

Hope this helps.

Mark.
_______________________________________________
juniper-nsp mailing list juniper-nsp [at] puck
https://puck.nether.net/mailman/listinfo/juniper-nsp
_______________________________________________
juniper-nsp mailing list juniper-nsp [at] puck
https://puck.nether.net/mailman/listinfo/juniper-nsp

nsp juniper RSS feed   Index | Next | Previous | View Threaded
 
 


Interested in having your list archived? Contact Gossamer Threads
 
  Web Applications & Managed Hosting Powered by Gossamer Threads Inc.