[j-nsp] ASR9001 vs MX80

Discussion:

William Jackson

2012-08-07 06:22:37 UTC

Hi

Having used the MX80 in a previous position and now being prompted to look at the ASR 9001, I was wondering if any people have operational experience with the ASR9001 platform?
Or any thoughts on comparison.

These will be used for IPv4/IPv6 eBGP transit and for MPLS L2VPN/VPLS drop offs, thus all the VLAN tagging, rewriting shenanigans!!

thanks

Tima Maryin

2012-08-07 08:56:26 UTC

Permalink

Hi,

have a look at:
https://puck.nether.net/pipermail/juniper-nsp/2012-May/023303.html

and the whole thread:
https://puck.nether.net/pipermail/juniper-nsp/2012-April/023068.html

They are about mx480 vs ASR9006, but most of stuff still applies.

Post by William Jackson
Hi
Having used the MX80 in a previous position and now being prompted to look at the ASR 9001, I was wondering if any people have operational experience with the ASR9001 platform?
Or any thoughts on comparison.
These will be used for IPv4/IPv6 eBGP transit and for MPLS L2VPN/VPLS drop offs, thus all the VLAN tagging, rewriting shenanigans!!
thanks

Doug Hanks

2012-08-07 21:30:25 UTC

Permalink

Please note there's also the MX5 through MX40 that can be upgraded via a
license to a full MX80 as well.

Post by Tima Maryin
Hi,
https://puck.nether.net/pipermail/juniper-nsp/2012-May/023303.html
https://puck.nether.net/pipermail/juniper-nsp/2012-April/023068.html
They are about mx480 vs ASR9006, but most of stuff still applies.

Post by William Jackson
Hi
Having used the MX80 in a previous position and now being prompted to
look at the ASR 9001, I was wondering if any people have operational
experience with the ASR9001 platform?
Or any thoughts on comparison.
These will be used for IPv4/IPv6 eBGP transit and for MPLS L2VPN/VPLS
drop offs, thus all the VLAN tagging, rewriting shenanigans!!
thanks

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

Xu Hu

2012-08-08 16:24:46 UTC

Permalink

Is any reason juniper choose the 5 for mx5, 40 for mx40, 480 for mx480? The number is for backplane bandwidth?

Thanks and regards,
Xu Hu

Post by Doug Hanks
Please note there's also the MX5 through MX40 that can be upgraded via a
license to a full MX80 as well.

Post by William Jackson
Hi
Having used the MX80 in a previous position and now being prompted to
look at the ASR 9001, I was wondering if any people have operational
experience with the ASR9001 platform?
Or any thoughts on comparison.
These will be used for IPv4/IPv6 eBGP transit and for MPLS L2VPN/VPLS
drop offs, thus all the VLAN tagging, rewriting shenanigans!!
thanks

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

Tomasz Mikołajek

2012-08-08 16:36:06 UTC

Permalink

Hello.
Yes and no. Yes, but befor using Trio Chipset, No because now for example
MX480 system capacity is 1.92 Tbps. If I am wrong, please correct me.

2012/8/8 Xu Hu <jstuxuhu0816 at gmail.com>

Post by Xu Hu
Is any reason juniper choose the 5 for mx5, 40 for mx40, 480 for mx480?
The number is for backplane bandwidth?
Thanks and regards,
Xu Hu

Post by Doug Hanks
Please note there's also the MX5 through MX40 that can be upgraded via a
license to a full MX80 as well.

Post by William Jackson
Hi
Having used the MX80 in a previous position and now being prompted to
look at the ASR 9001, I was wondering if any people have operational
experience with the ASR9001 platform?
Or any thoughts on comparison.
These will be used for IPv4/IPv6 eBGP transit and for MPLS L2VPN/VPLS
drop offs, thus all the VLAN tagging, rewriting shenanigans!!
thanks

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

Doug Hanks

2012-08-08 23:31:45 UTC

Permalink

There was no technical reason behind the name of the MX5, MX10 or MX40; was just a marketing thing.

Technically the MX5, MX10, MX40 or MX80 doesn't even have a switch fabric. Everything is done on a single Trio chipset. Typically the switch fabric would be connected into the Trio chipset as well, but since there's no switch fabric on the MX5, MX10, MX40 or MX80 Juniper decided to plug 4x10GE XFPs where the switch fabric would have connected instead.

Please keep in mind that the *only* restriction on the MX5, MX10 and MX40 are how many ports you can use. The bandwidth, RIB, FIB, etc have the exact same scaling numbers as the full blown MX80.

From: Tomasz Miko?ajek <tmikolajek at gmail.com<mailto:tmikolajek at gmail.com>>
Date: Wednesday, August 8, 2012 9:36 AM
To: Xu Hu <jstuxuhu0816 at gmail.com<mailto:jstuxuhu0816 at gmail.com>>
Cc: Doug Hanks <dhanks at juniper.net<mailto:dhanks at juniper.net>>, "juniper-nsp at puck.nether.net<mailto:juniper-nsp at puck.nether.net>" <juniper-nsp at puck.nether.net<mailto:juniper-nsp at puck.nether.net>>
Subject: Re: [j-nsp] ASR9001 vs MX80

Hello.
Yes and no. Yes, but befor using Trio Chipset, No because now for example MX480 system capacity is 1.92 Tbps. If I am wrong, please correct me.

2012/8/8 Xu Hu <jstuxuhu0816 at gmail.com<mailto:jstuxuhu0816 at gmail.com>>
Is any reason juniper choose the 5 for mx5, 40 for mx40, 480 for mx480? The number is for backplane bandwidth?

Thanks and regards,
Xu Hu

Post by Doug Hanks
Please note there's also the MX5 through MX40 that can be upgraded via a
license to a full MX80 as well.

Post by William Jackson
Hi
Having used the MX80 in a previous position and now being prompted to
look at the ASR 9001, I was wondering if any people have operational
experience with the ASR9001 platform?
Or any thoughts on comparison.
These will be used for IPv4/IPv6 eBGP transit and for MPLS L2VPN/VPLS
drop offs, thus all the VLAN tagging, rewriting shenanigans!!
thanks

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

Nicolaj Kamensek

2012-08-09 15:13:18 UTC

Permalink

Hello list,

I am a little lost here trying to find the cause for a little packetloss
(up to 1%) I'm seeing in our network. Here is the situation:

a MX480 is acting as a router and layer2 device using irb interfaces for
the routing. It connects two big switches with 10GE each. One is a Cisco
6509 with sup32, the other one a Brocade SuperX. Rapid spanning-tree is
active.
I am seeing 0% packet-loss for everything connected to the Cisco. There
is also no packet-loss for switched traffic that passes both switches
and the router as well. But there is packet loss for more or less all
routed traffic coming from the SuperX which variies between 0% and 1%.

Since only routed traffic is affected, one might safely asume that this
is not related to the switching hardware. The link itself can't be the
cause as well. It's furthermore unlikely that the router itself is
broken since everything coming from the cisco works fine.

Just to mention that: routed traffic might be externally or internally,
it doesn't make a difference.

This is the configuration for the interface facing the SuperX:

nico at MX480> show configuration interfaces xe-1/1/0
flexible-vlan-tagging;
encapsulation flexible-ethernet-services;
unit 0 {
family bridge {
interface-mode trunk;
vlan-id-list 0-4094;
}
}

The other interface is actually an aggregated link consisting of 2x 10G
going to the Cisco. It looks pretty much the same but since there are
also a few routed-only units, the vlan-id-list looks a little different
in order to be able to set up those routed ports.

I am now seeking for hints what to do. Might the currently unnecessary
"flexible-vlan-tagging & flexible-ethernet-services" be the cause? This
is just to keep options open but is right now not required though and
will most likely consume a little more memory than required (shouldn't
be a problem with the MX though).
Might the xe-1/1/0 interface be broken? Unlikely in my opinion since l2
traffic works.

Any hint will be appreciated! Thanks in advance!

Nico

Nicolaj Kamensek

2012-08-09 16:19:30 UTC

Permalink

Post by Nicolaj Kamensek
Since only routed traffic is affected, one might safely asume that this
is not related to the switching hardware. The link itself can't be the
cause as well. It's furthermore unlikely that the router itself is
broken since everything coming from the cisco works fine.
Just to mention that: routed traffic might be externally or internally,
it doesn't make a difference.

not all routed traffic is affected, it seems to be just a few servers
but there is no pattern ibvious yet. Since the affected servers didn't
show this behaviour 2 days ago before we changed the router
configuration to L2 + L3, it is very likely that this is related to this
somehow. Before that, the router was just a router and the switches were
connected with each other - just the Cisco was connected to the router.

Nico

Doug Hanks

2012-08-09 15:32:01 UTC

Permalink

Thanks to couple of people pinged me off-list; I accidentally switched
around the MX80. The MICs are installed where the switch fabric would
have been and the 4x10G are where the MICs would have been.

You essentially get 4x10GE ports for "free" on the MX80 because there's no
switch fabric and you get the full bandwidth of the Trio chipset on the
MX5, MX10, and MX40; the only restrictions are which ports you can use.

Post by Doug Hanks
There was no technical reason behind the name of the MX5, MX10 or MX40;
was just a marketing thing.
Technically the MX5, MX10, MX40 or MX80 doesn't even have a switch
fabric. Everything is done on a single Trio chipset. Typically the
switch fabric would be connected into the Trio chipset as well, but since
there's no switch fabric on the MX5, MX10, MX40 or MX80 Juniper decided
to plug 4x10GE XFPs where the switch fabric would have connected instead.
Please keep in mind that the *only* restriction on the MX5, MX10 and MX40
are how many ports you can use. The bandwidth, RIB, FIB, etc have the
exact same scaling numbers as the full blown MX80.
From: Tomasz Miko?ajek <tmikolajek at gmail.com<mailto:tmikolajek at gmail.com>>
Date: Wednesday, August 8, 2012 9:36 AM
To: Xu Hu <jstuxuhu0816 at gmail.com<mailto:jstuxuhu0816 at gmail.com>>
Cc: Doug Hanks <dhanks at juniper.net<mailto:dhanks at juniper.net>>,
"juniper-nsp at puck.nether.net<mailto:juniper-nsp at puck.nether.net>"
<juniper-nsp at puck.nether.net<mailto:juniper-nsp at puck.nether.net>>
Subject: Re: [j-nsp] ASR9001 vs MX80
Hello.
Yes and no. Yes, but befor using Trio Chipset, No because now for example
MX480 system capacity is 1.92 Tbps. If I am wrong, please correct me.
2012/8/8 Xu Hu <jstuxuhu0816 at gmail.com<mailto:jstuxuhu0816 at gmail.com>>
Is any reason juniper choose the 5 for mx5, 40 for mx40, 480 for mx480?
The number is for backplane bandwidth?
Thanks and regards,
Xu Hu
On 8 Aug, 2012, at 5:30, Doug Hanks

Post by Doug Hanks
Please note there's also the MX5 through MX40 that can be upgraded via a
license to a full MX80 as well.
On 8/7/12 1:56 AM, "Tima Maryin"

Post by William Jackson
Hi
Having used the MX80 in a previous position and now being prompted to
look at the ASR 9001, I was wondering if any people have operational
experience with the ASR9001 platform?
Or any thoughts on comparison.
These will be used for IPv4/IPv6 eBGP transit and for MPLS L2VPN/VPLS
drop offs, thus all the VLAN tagging, rewriting shenanigans!!
thanks

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

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

Michel de Nostredame

2012-08-10 05:58:21 UTC

Permalink

Post by Doug Hanks
Thanks to couple of people pinged me off-list; I accidentally switched
around the MX80. The MICs are installed where the switch fabric would
have been and the 4x10G are where the MICs would have been.
You essentially get 4x10GE ports for "free" on the MX80 because there's no
switch fabric and you get the full bandwidth of the Trio chipset on the
MX5, MX10, and MX40; the only restrictions are which ports you can use.

Hi Doug,

I've learned from a S.I. said not only restriction on ports but also
on j-flow volume. the MX5 license allows 5Gbps volume to be processed
by j-flow. Is that correct statement?

Thanks,
--
Michel~

Doug Hanks

2012-08-10 18:00:58 UTC

Permalink

It's time for the Bay Area Juniper Users Group again. October 16th 5.30pm.

Sign up for free at http://bajug.eventbrite.com

Thanks,
Doug

Stefan Fouant

2012-08-10 18:11:11 UTC

Permalink

Post by Doug Hanks
It's time for the Bay Area Juniper Users Group again. October 16th 5.30pm.
Sign up for free at http://bajug.eventbrite.com

Kudos Doug, really good stuff... maybe I'll have to schedule some
training related travel to Sunnyvale so I can attend.

Thanks for setting this up.

--
Stefan Fouant
JNCIE-SEC, JNCIE-SP, JNCIE-ENT, JNCI
Technical Trainer, Juniper Networks

Follow us on Twitter @JuniperEducate

Doug Hanks

2012-08-10 18:30:24 UTC

Permalink

Should be a good turn out. For those of you interested and thinking about
scheduling some other business in Sunnyvale so that you can attend, we had
about 130 members for the first BAJUG meeting.

Thanks,
Doug

Post by Stefan Fouant

Post by Doug Hanks
It's time for the Bay Area Juniper Users Group again. October 16th
5.30pm.
Sign up for free at http://bajug.eventbrite.com

Kudos Doug, really good stuff... maybe I'll have to schedule some
training related travel to Sunnyvale so I can attend.
Thanks for setting this up.
--
Stefan Fouant
JNCIE-SEC, JNCIE-SP, JNCIE-ENT, JNCI
Technical Trainer, Juniper Networks

Mark Tinka

2012-10-01 13:29:46 UTC

Permalink

On Tuesday, August 07, 2012 08:22:37 AM William Jackson

Post by William Jackson
Having used the MX80 in a previous position and now being
prompted to look at the ASR 9001, I was wondering if any
people have operational experience with the ASR9001
platform? Or any thoughts on comparison.

I see no one replied to this; probably because the box is
still new and most operators may not have put them into
production yet.

I'm looking at deploying some before December (likely,
alongside some MX80's, as it were). In case I do, and you
haven't yet done yours, I'll be happy to share feedback.

Cheers,

Mark.
-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: signature.asc
Type: application/pgp-signature
Size: 836 bytes
Desc: This is a digitally signed message part.
URL: <https://puck.nether.net/pipermail/juniper-nsp/attachments/20121001/f9fae051/attachment.sig>

Skeeve Stevens

2012-10-01 16:30:19 UTC

Permalink

What features would you be using the ASR9k for over the MX80's?

...Skeeve
*

*
*Skeeve Stevens, CEO - *eintellego Pty Ltd
skeeve at eintellego.net ; www.eintellego.net

Phone: 1300 753 383; Cell +61 (0)414 753 383 ; skype://skeeve

facebook.com/eintellego ; <http://twitter.com/networkceoau>
linkedin.com/in/skeeve

twitter.com/networkceoau ; blog: www.network-ceo.net

The Experts Who The Experts Call
Juniper - Cisco ? IBM - Cloud

Post by Mark Tinka
On Tuesday, August 07, 2012 08:22:37 AM William Jackson

I see no one replied to this; probably because the box is
still new and most operators may not have put them into
production yet.
I'm looking at deploying some before December (likely,
alongside some MX80's, as it were). In case I do, and you
haven't yet done yours, I'll be happy to share feedback.
Cheers,
Mark.
_______________________________________________
juniper-nsp mailing list juniper-nsp at puck.nether.net
https://puck.nether.net/mailman/listinfo/juniper-nsp

Mark Tinka

2013-02-17 21:02:31 UTC

Permalink

On Monday, October 01, 2012 06:30:19 PM Skeeve Stevens

Post by Skeeve Stevens
What features would you be using the ASR9k for over the
MX80's?

It's a price thing :-).

Technically, the ASR9001 "can" deliver 40Gbps ports on the
chassis. That's one reason to choose it over the MX80 (that
and the possibility that IOS XR is shaping up to be better
code than Junos, hehe).

That said, the MX80 won on price, and for what we needed the
deployment for, 40Gbps ports weren't an urgent or life-
changing requirement.

Mark.
-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: signature.asc
Type: application/pgp-signature
Size: 836 bytes
Desc: This is a digitally signed message part.
URL: <https://puck.nether.net/pipermail/juniper-nsp/attachments/20130217/d5336692/attachment.sig>