Juniper MX10 and dual stack BGP
Does anyone have any sort of performance numbers for the jnpr MX10 series running dual stack ipv4/ipv6? I'm specifically interested in how many BGP prefixes it can handle in dual stacked mode. I've got an environment currently taking 4 full ipv4 tables and a smattering of prefixes coming from a public peering exchange, and I'm curious what will happen if we move to dual stack... thanks! -chris
On Wed, 30 Jan 2013, Christopher Rogers wrote:
Does anyone have any sort of performance numbers for the jnpr MX10 series running dual stack ipv4/ipv6? I'm specifically interested in how many BGP prefixes it can handle in dual stacked mode. I've got an environment currently taking 4 full ipv4 tables and a smattering of prefixes coming from a public peering exchange, and I'm curious what will happen if we move to dual stack...
I don't have MXs at the border at this point, but I do have a pair of M120s taking 3 full v4 and v6 BGP feeds, plus a few non-transit peers, and they're handling the load just fine. Just as a point of reference... jms
On 1/30/2013 5:16 PM, Justin M. Streiner wrote:
On Wed, 30 Jan 2013, Christopher Rogers wrote:
Does anyone have any sort of performance numbers for the jnpr MX10 series running dual stack ipv4/ipv6? I'm specifically interested in how many BGP prefixes it can handle in dual stacked mode. I've got an environment currently taking 4 full ipv4 tables and a smattering of prefixes coming from a public peering exchange, and I'm curious what will happen if we move to dual stack...
I don't have MXs at the border at this point, but I do have a pair of M120s taking 3 full v4 and v6 BGP feeds, plus a few non-transit peers, and they're handling the load just fine. Just as a point of reference...
jms
According to Juniper, the MX uses separate memory for v4 and v6. The numbers that I have seen for MX80 are: v4 FIB 1mil v4 RIB 4mil v6 FIB 512k v6 RIB 3mil MX10 should be the same as it has the same RE, but just enables/licenses different #s of ports. These are "conservative" numbers and I have seen claims of higher actual capacity from some sources. ... I wouldn't expect that you would have any route memory issues moving to dual stack ... -DMM
On (2013-01-30 21:06 -0500), David Miller wrote:
According to Juniper, the MX uses separate memory for v4 and v6.
Where do they state this? MX is ambiguous, what matters is linecard HW.
The numbers that I have seen for MX80 are:
I.e. trio. No. Trio uses flat RLDRAM, and any IPv6 route installed will mean less IPv4 routes can be installed. # show luchip 0 RLDRAM: 576 Mb by 4 devices at 533 MHz. DDR3: 1024 Mb by 2 devices at 733MHz/CL10. TCAM: Installed. I.e. 576 * 4 * 8/9 * /8 = 256MB # show jnh 0 pool summary Name Size Allocated % Utilization EDMEM 33554432 15238492 45% IDMEM 323584 159278 49% OMEM 33554432 33079304 98% Shared LMEM 512 67 13% RLDRAM == EDMEM + IDMEM DDR3 == OMEM (mobilenext, flow stuff) TCAM == not used (E series MPC have twice the DDR3)
v4 FIB 1mil v4 RIB 4mil
v6 FIB 512k v6 RIB 3mil
I believe these are the numbers JNPR test with and are mutually exclusive. 256MB is fuckton of memory for lookup, if they can use it fully, but due to caching reasons, some stuff might be mirrored to each bank to accelerate lookup, so I'm unsure how far you can scale Trio. -- ++ytti
participants (4)
-
Christopher Rogers -
David Miller -
Justin M. Streiner -
Saku Ytti