This concerns me a little. I'M about to take a full table on a MX5. Is it only an issue when the adjacencyis lost and we need to receive the table again or will performance of the entire box be affected? -- Luca
On 25/09/13 12:18 AM, "Nitzan Tzelniker" <[email protected]> wrote: >Hi, > >The problem with the MX80 is not the FIB size but the slow RE >The time it take to receive full routing table is long and to put it into >the FIB is even worst > >Nitzan > > >On Tue, Sep 24, 2013 at 10:21 AM, Krasimir Avramski ><[email protected]>wrote: > >> Agree.. other elements like counters, filters, descriptors etc .. but >>it is >> dynamic allocation which isn't the case with ichip - 16M bank for >> firewalls , 16M for jtree with fixed regions. Although there is a >> workaround( >> >> >>http://www.juniper.net/techpubs/en_US/junos10.4/topics/task/configuration >>/junos-software-jtree-memory-repartitioning.html >> ) >> for >> ichip I am calculating the worst case scenario with unique inner vpn >>label >> usage with composite nexthops. >> >> >> Best Regards, >> Krasi >> >> >> On 24 September 2013 09:40, Saku Ytti <[email protected]> wrote: >> >> > On (2013-09-24 08:49 +0300), Krasimir Avramski wrote: >> > >> > > Ichip(DPC) has 16-32M RLDRAM and holds 1M routes in FIB, so 256M on >> trio >> > is >> > > huge increment - it is in realm of ~5M routes(since they use dynamic >> > memory >> > > allocation to fill up with routes only) and more than 1M labeled >>prefix >> > >> > I don't think this is apples to apples. The 16MB RLDRAM is just for >> jtree, >> > while 256MB in trio has lot more than just ktree, and some elements >>are >> > sprayed across the 4*64MB devices which make up the 256MB RDLRAM. >> > >> > I'd be quite comfortable with 2M FIB throughout the lifecycle of >>current >> > generation, but I've never heard JNPR quote anything near this for >>trio >> > scale. >> > >> > I'm not sure I either understand why it matters if route is labeled or >> > not, if >> > each route has unique label, then it means you're wasting NH space, >>but >> if >> > you >> > are doing next-hop-self and advertising only loopback labels, then I >> don't >> > think labeled route should be more expensive. >> > (NH lives in RLDRAM in Trio as well, and I believe it specifically is >> > sprayed >> > across all four RLDRAM devices). >> > >> > -- >> > ++ytti >> > _______________________________________________ >> > juniper-nsp mailing list [email protected] >> > https://puck.nether.net/mailman/listinfo/juniper-nsp >> > >> _______________________________________________ >> juniper-nsp mailing list [email protected] >> https://puck.nether.net/mailman/listinfo/juniper-nsp >> >_______________________________________________ >juniper-nsp mailing list [email protected] >https://puck.nether.net/mailman/listinfo/juniper-nsp _______________________________________________ juniper-nsp mailing list [email protected] https://puck.nether.net/mailman/listinfo/juniper-nsp
