On 8/26/23 00:54, Tom Beecher wrote:
It would, sure. Instead of storing a single prefix/next-hop with flags
in memory, you now have to store every prefix/next-hop that you are
announcing as well.
Indeed.
But it has been worth it. The load balancing from PE-to-PE has been
fantastic,
>
> On MX480 16GB RE's running two full BGP feeds but hundreds of customer
> sessions, Add-Paths really eats into RAM.
>
It would, sure. Instead of storing a single prefix/next-hop with flags in
memory, you now have to store every prefix/next-hop that you are announcing
as well.
On Fri, Aug 25,
No VC here, unsure if it works, but yeah, we like them and deploy them in pairs
for metro-e (ce) and cbh for vlans carried over mpls pw
Reliable for us
Aaron
> On Aug 25, 2023, at 4:40 PM, Mark Tinka wrote:
>
>
>
>> On 8/25/23 19:16, Tom Beecher wrote:
>>
>> In my experience and testing
On 8/25/23 19:16, Tom Beecher wrote:
In my experience and testing with them, you have a decent bit of
headroom past the published RIB/FIB limits before they'll fall over.
They are holding up pretty well for us, mainly because we do a lot more
BGP on MX480's than on MX204's. We use the
I know it is a bit off topic for nanog, but this test was very exciting today:
https://twitter.com/SpaceX/status/1695158759717474379
Happy friday! While they have filed for a launch license for august
31st, it is impossible for me to believe that date! It was also
difficult to believe the deluge
This is an automated weekly mailing describing the state of the Global
IPv4 Routing Table as seen from APNIC's router in Japan.
The posting is sent to APOPS, NANOG, AfNOG, SANOG, PacNOG, SAFNOG
UKNOF, TZNOG, MENOG, BJNOG, SDNOG, CMNOG, LACNOG and the RIPE Routing WG.
Daily listings are sent to
>
> On another note, the potential issue we might run into is pressure on
> control plane memory on the MX204 for us that run BGP Add-Paths. You can
> always upgrade the RE on an MX240/480/960, but the MX204 is fixed (and
> last time I checked, fiddling with Juniper RE memory was generally
>
Hi Etienne,
Those replies are accurate. There are still some large PBB deployments since
once you deploy technologies it’s hard to change. However, there haven’t
really been new PBB deployments in many years now. Vendors are also not
developing the features to support it any more. I would
On 8/23/23 17:14, Matt Erculiani wrote:
Does Fusion not make sense in this case? I've not had a ton of
experience with it, but it does well to add a crazy port count to an
otherwise very port limited device.
In small edge PoP's, we attach an Arista 1U switch with tons of 1/10Gbps
ports
On 8/25/23 09:41, Tarko Tikan wrote:
AFAIK this reflects the reality very well. There are huge PBB
deployments in very large networks but the overall number of networks,
using PBB, is very low. Even in those networks PBB is/will be phased
out so don't expect any new deployments. It is
hey,
I've had two private replies, both of which suggest that
PBB has little to no share in the overall pie of the
aggregation technology space,
nor in the overall pie of the core technology space.
However, a third correspondent states that Bard (Google's "Chat-based AI
tool") claims that
I've had two private replies, both of which suggest that
PBB has little to no share in the overall pie of the aggregation technology
space,
nor in the overall pie of the core technology space.
However, a third correspondent states that Bard (Google's "Chat-based AI
tool") claims that
PBB is
12 matches
Mail list logo
