Not peer via IPv6? Really? And, given what we have experienced with the v4 routing table bloat, I can't imagine that moving to v6 will change operators' tendencies to deaggregate. It just means we have more space to do it. If you check the v6 table today, you will already see lots of more-specific announcements, /64's (depending on your provider), etc. that shouldn't be there. I haven't heard anyone say that v6 was going to help the DFZ keep from expanding. Quite the contrary.
Mike From: David [mailto:webnet...@gmail.com] Sent: Monday, January 31, 2011 10:22 AM To: Michael K. Smith - Adhost Cc: cisco-nsp@puck.nether.net Subject: Re: [c-nsp] Router/switch recommendations for colocation Why would there be a need to forklift? If the box will not do peering via IPv6, then modify the CAM profile to allocate more memory for IPv4, and that takes care of 500+K IPv4 routes. The key thing here is how many routes are held in the FIB, which holds the best routes after BGP machine runs through its calculations, and as long as the box can hold all of the peer's routes in the RIB-in, then you're ok. Hopefully when we allocate all /8 this year, folks will start moving over to IPv6. With IPv6's aggregation capabilities, you won't need such a large table, so you're ok there. The OP is only doing two BGP sessions, and it seems requires a multitude of GigE ports, so an ASR here gets expensive fast for this type of deployment. I am curious though Mike... what box would you suggest here? David. On Mon, Jan 31, 2011 at 9:24 AM, Michael K. Smith - Adhost <mksm...@adhost.com<mailto:mksm...@adhost.com>> wrote: > -----Original Message----- > From: > cisco-nsp-boun...@puck.nether.net<mailto:cisco-nsp-boun...@puck.nether.net> > [mailto:cisco-nsp-<mailto:cisco-nsp-> > boun...@puck.nether.net<mailto:boun...@puck.nether.net>] On Behalf Of David > Kotlerewsky > Sent: Monday, January 31, 2011 9:08 AM > To: cisco-nsp@puck.nether.net<mailto:cisco-nsp@puck.nether.net> > Subject: Re: [c-nsp] Router/switch recommendations for colocation > > Sooo, does it have to be Cisco??? > > I am currently helping a customer with a very similar situation, and I think > based on what you're trying to do here, you should look outside of what > Cisco can offer you. In my mind this is a perfect fit for a Brocade NetIron > CER 2000 switch/router. It can take in multiple BGP feeds, it has MPLS > features if needed, oh, and it's only a 1U box with RPSUs. Also, depending > in the actual model you choose to go with, I think you should be able to get > it cheaper than an ASR, and support costs are lower. Cisco 37XX switches are > really not data center grade for lack of memory/buffer space and MPLS/VPLS > features. I have customers running NetIrons in their cores as well as PoP PE > routers, and everything works as its supposed to. > > Just my $0.02 > > David. >From the literature: The NetIron CER 2000 can store up to 512,000 IPv4 or 128,000 IPv6 unicast routes, enough to accommodate the full IPv4 Internet routing table today and provide a smooth migration path to IPv6. That is not going to hold you for very long, IMO. If you buy this box for BGP you are going to be doing a forklift upgrade in less than two years. Mike _______________________________________________ cisco-nsp mailing list cisco-nsp@puck.nether.net https://puck.nether.net/mailman/listinfo/cisco-nsp archive at http://puck.nether.net/pipermail/cisco-nsp/
