Mailing List Archive

VMX integrated FPC
Hello

I remember when I originally got my mittens on VMX there was a boot
flag to tell it to use an integrated FPC or integrated RIOT without a
separate VM running forwarding. I can't find my notes on that.

Does anyone know if that's still possible? I just want a pretend/low
performance/fake FPC ideally.

Cheers

Mark
_______________________________________________
juniper-nsp mailing list juniper-nsp@puck.nether.net
https://puck.nether.net/mailman/listinfo/juniper-nsp
Re: VMX integrated FPC [ In reply to ]
On Mon, 21 Dec 2020 at 09:56, Mark Tees <marktees@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> Hello
>
> I remember when I originally got my mittens on VMX there was a boot
> flag to tell it to use an integrated FPC or integrated RIOT without a
> separate VM running forwarding. I can't find my notes on that.
>
> Does anyone know if that's still possible? I just want a pretend/low
> performance/fake FPC ideally.

Hi Mark,

Are you thinking of this?

"set chassis fpc 0 lite-mode" - requires a reboot to take effect.

Cheers,
James.
_______________________________________________
juniper-nsp mailing list juniper-nsp@puck.nether.net
https://puck.nether.net/mailman/listinfo/juniper-nsp
Re: VMX integrated FPC [ In reply to ]
> James Bensley
> Sent: Monday, December 21, 2020 3:01 PM
>
> On Mon, 21 Dec 2020 at 09:56, Mark Tees <marktees@gmail.com> wrote:
> >
> > Hello
> >
> > I remember when I originally got my mittens on VMX there was a boot
> > flag to tell it to use an integrated FPC or integrated RIOT without a
> > separate VM running forwarding. I can't find my notes on that.
> >
> > Does anyone know if that's still possible? I just want a pretend/low
> > performance/fake FPC ideally.
>
> Hi Mark,
>
> Are you thinking of this?
>
> "set chassis fpc 0 lite-mode" - requires a reboot to take effect.
>
My understanding is that it just reduces the vfp VM demands for CPU/MEM
rather than eliminating it completely?

I guess if you don't want any vfp VM and want to run vcp VM only then vRR or
the cRDP are the possible options?

adam

_______________________________________________
juniper-nsp mailing list juniper-nsp@puck.nether.net
https://puck.nether.net/mailman/listinfo/juniper-nsp
Re: VMX integrated FPC [ In reply to ]
On Mon, 21 Dec 2020 at 18:27, <adamv0025@netconsultings.com> wrote:

> I guess if you don't want any vfp VM and want to run vcp VM only then vRR or
> the cRDP are the possible options?

I suspect the requirement is MX feature/configuration validation, so
pps would be traded for simplicity of stack, down to 1pps. vRR and
cRPD would not be an acceptable answer for this use-case.


--
++ytti
_______________________________________________
juniper-nsp mailing list juniper-nsp@puck.nether.net
https://puck.nether.net/mailman/listinfo/juniper-nsp
Re: VMX integrated FPC [ In reply to ]
Hi,

I remember when I originally got my mittens on VMX there was a boot
> flag to tell it to use an integrated FPC or integrated RIOT without a
> separate VM running forwarding. I can't find my notes on that.
>
> Does anyone know if that's still possible? I just want a pretend/low
> performance/fake FPC ideally.

I think you're referring to the Nested VM Model:
https://www.juniper.net/documentation/en_US/vmx/topics/topic-map/vmx-nested-installing-on-kvm.html

Cheers!
Sander
Re: VMX integrated FPC [ In reply to ]
That's it. I actually wanted to see MX specific things get spun on up
on interfaces from some code being developed.

Currently I have 2 x VMX's squashed into 4G's of RAM running under
Vmware Fusion which currently does the job but it's a bit messy. I can
probably fix the mess by generating the Vmware VM config files.

I should inspect the VRR image to see what it's doing and if there is
anything that can be mimicked.

The other thing is if I am happy with just seeing the changes being
loaded into control plane successfully I can just use a group but not
apply it.

On Tue, 22 Dec 2020 at 02:52, Saku Ytti <saku@ytti.fi> wrote:
>
> On Mon, 21 Dec 2020 at 18:27, <adamv0025@netconsultings.com> wrote:
>
> > I guess if you don't want any vfp VM and want to run vcp VM only then vRR or
> > the cRDP are the possible options?
>
> I suspect the requirement is MX feature/configuration validation, so
> pps would be traded for simplicity of stack, down to 1pps. vRR and
> cRPD would not be an acceptable answer for this use-case.
>
>
> --
> ++ytti



--
Regards,

Mark Tees
_______________________________________________
juniper-nsp mailing list juniper-nsp@puck.nether.net
https://puck.nether.net/mailman/listinfo/juniper-nsp
Re: VMX integrated FPC [ In reply to ]
I would love to use that but it requires a CPU that has nested
virtualisation features which my laptop doesn't have.

I have another machine with a newer Intel i7 CPU but I suspect VMCS is
Xeon only. I can always boot that second box into Linux and run KVM
directly on it though.

Food for thought.

On Tue, 22 Dec 2020 at 02:59, Sander Steffann <sander@steffann.nl> wrote:
>
> Hi,
>
> I remember when I originally got my mittens on VMX there was a boot
> > flag to tell it to use an integrated FPC or integrated RIOT without a
> > separate VM running forwarding. I can't find my notes on that.
> >
> > Does anyone know if that's still possible? I just want a pretend/low
> > performance/fake FPC ideally.
>
> I think you're referring to the Nested VM Model:
> https://www.juniper.net/documentation/en_US/vmx/topics/topic-map/vmx-nested-installing-on-kvm.html
>
> Cheers!
> Sander
>


--

M Tees
_______________________________________________
juniper-nsp mailing list juniper-nsp@puck.nether.net
https://puck.nether.net/mailman/listinfo/juniper-nsp
Re: VMX integrated FPC [ In reply to ]
Digging into that a bit further, it looks like when I enabled the
Intel VT-x/EPT on a Linux VM in Vmware it booted with /dev/kvm so it
may work.

Will give it a go and report back.

On Tue, 22 Dec 2020 at 09:50, Mark Tees <marktees@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> I would love to use that but it requires a CPU that has nested
> virtualisation features which my laptop doesn't have.
>
> I have another machine with a newer Intel i7 CPU but I suspect VMCS is
> Xeon only. I can always boot that second box into Linux and run KVM
> directly on it though.
>
> Food for thought.
>
> On Tue, 22 Dec 2020 at 02:59, Sander Steffann <sander@steffann.nl> wrote:
> >
> > Hi,
> >
> > I remember when I originally got my mittens on VMX there was a boot
> > > flag to tell it to use an integrated FPC or integrated RIOT without a
> > > separate VM running forwarding. I can't find my notes on that.
> > >
> > > Does anyone know if that's still possible? I just want a pretend/low
> > > performance/fake FPC ideally.
> >
> > I think you're referring to the Nested VM Model:
> > https://www.juniper.net/documentation/en_US/vmx/topics/topic-map/vmx-nested-installing-on-kvm.html
> >
> > Cheers!
> > Sander
> >
>
>
> --
>
> M Tees



--

M Tees
_______________________________________________
juniper-nsp mailing list juniper-nsp@puck.nether.net
https://puck.nether.net/mailman/listinfo/juniper-nsp
Re: VMX integrated FPC [ In reply to ]
vRR is basically just the VCP component of vMX without the vFP, which is why it’s limited to Linux bridged “management” interfaces.

There is nested vMX which runs the VCP as a nested virtual machine within the VFP, not sure if it reduces requirements and iirc it only works on KVM.

Sent from my iPhone

> On Dec 21, 2020, at 6:43 PM, Mark Tees <marktees@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> ?That's it. I actually wanted to see MX specific things get spun on up
> on interfaces from some code being developed.
>
> Currently I have 2 x VMX's squashed into 4G's of RAM running under
> Vmware Fusion which currently does the job but it's a bit messy. I can
> probably fix the mess by generating the Vmware VM config files.
>
> I should inspect the VRR image to see what it's doing and if there is
> anything that can be mimicked.
>
> The other thing is if I am happy with just seeing the changes being
> loaded into control plane successfully I can just use a group but not
> apply it.
>
>> On Tue, 22 Dec 2020 at 02:52, Saku Ytti <saku@ytti.fi> wrote:
>>
>>> On Mon, 21 Dec 2020 at 18:27, <adamv0025@netconsultings.com> wrote:
>>>
>>> I guess if you don't want any vfp VM and want to run vcp VM only then vRR or
>>> the cRDP are the possible options?
>>
>> I suspect the requirement is MX feature/configuration validation, so
>> pps would be traded for simplicity of stack, down to 1pps. vRR and
>> cRPD would not be an acceptable answer for this use-case.
>>
>>
>> --
>> ++ytti
>
>
>
> --
> Regards,
>
> Mark Tees
> _______________________________________________
> juniper-nsp mailing list juniper-nsp@puck.nether.net
> https://puck.nether.net/mailman/listinfo/juniper-nsp
_______________________________________________
juniper-nsp mailing list juniper-nsp@puck.nether.net
https://puck.nether.net/mailman/listinfo/juniper-nsp
Re: VMX integrated FPC [ In reply to ]
Nikolas, Mark,

> On 23 Dec 2020, at 02:47, Nikolas Geyer <nik@neko.id.au> wrote:
>
> vRR is basically just the VCP component of vMX without the vFP, which is why it’s limited to Linux bridged “management” interfaces.
>
> There is nested vMX which runs the VCP as a nested virtual machine within the VFP, not sure if it reduces requirements and iirc it only works on KVM.

VFP has very specific requirements w/r to cores and memory, it’s a superset of VCP. So no, the requirements will be actually bigger:
https://www.juniper.net/documentation/en_US/vmx/topics/reference/general/vmx-hw-sw-minimums.html

--
?ukasz Bromirski
CCIE R&S/SP #15929, CCDE #2012::17, PGP Key ID: 0xFD077F6A
_______________________________________________
juniper-nsp mailing list juniper-nsp@puck.nether.net
https://puck.nether.net/mailman/listinfo/juniper-nsp
Re: VMX integrated FPC [ In reply to ]
On 21 Dec 2020, at 12:54 EAT, Mark Tees wrote:

> Does anyone know if that's still possible? I just want a pretend/low
> performance/fake FPC ideally.

In addition to the responses you’ve received there’s also
https://github.com/Juniper/OpenJNPR-Container-vMX to look at.

YMMV.

--
patrick
_______________________________________________
juniper-nsp mailing list juniper-nsp@puck.nether.net
https://puck.nether.net/mailman/listinfo/juniper-nsp
Re: VMX integrated FPC [ In reply to ]
Hi Lukasz.

Went scavenging through documentation and the requirements are not bigger, they are actually less.

Memory required is the same (3GB) but nested only requires 3 vCPU to run everything, versus the 4 vCPU required for non-nested.

So negligible reduction, but it’s definitely not bigger requirements for a basic life mode instance.

Cheers,
Nik.

Sent from my iPhone

> On Dec 23, 2020, at 10:50 AM, ?ukasz Bromirski <lukasz@bromirski.net> wrote:
>
> ?Nikolas, Mark,
>
>> On 23 Dec 2020, at 02:47, Nikolas Geyer <nik@neko.id.au> wrote:
>>
>> vRR is basically just the VCP component of vMX without the vFP, which is why it’s limited to Linux bridged “management” interfaces.
>>
>> There is nested vMX which runs the VCP as a nested virtual machine within the VFP, not sure if it reduces requirements and iirc it only works on KVM.
>
> VFP has very specific requirements w/r to cores and memory, it’s a superset of VCP. So no, the requirements will be actually bigger:
> https://www.juniper.net/documentation/en_US/vmx/topics/reference/general/vmx-hw-sw-minimums.html
>
> --
> ?ukasz Bromirski
> CCIE R&S/SP #15929, CCDE #2012::17, PGP Key ID: 0xFD077F6A
_______________________________________________
juniper-nsp mailing list juniper-nsp@puck.nether.net
https://puck.nether.net/mailman/listinfo/juniper-nsp
Re: VMX integrated FPC [ In reply to ]
The original line I was looking for was vm_local_rpio=”1” /boot/loader.conf

I believe VMX was pre-release at the stage I was thinking of and after
release it was only distributed as the multi-VM setup so I'm not sure
if the code that ran the virtual FPC integrated is still there.

https://docs.gns3.com/docs/how-to-guides/importing-vmx-and-vqfx-into-gns3/

On Mon, 21 Dec 2020 at 19:54, Mark Tees <marktees@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> Hello
>
> I remember when I originally got my mittens on VMX there was a boot
> flag to tell it to use an integrated FPC or integrated RIOT without a
> separate VM running forwarding. I can't find my notes on that.
>
> Does anyone know if that's still possible? I just want a pretend/low
> performance/fake FPC ideally.
>
> Cheers
>
> Mark



--

M Tees
_______________________________________________
juniper-nsp mailing list juniper-nsp@puck.nether.net
https://puck.nether.net/mailman/listinfo/juniper-nsp