I would second Ivan's comment. Unless you are a major transit operator (which beats the "small ISP" requirement), you don't really need a full view, and can do we a limited view with a default route.
Arie On Sat, Jul 11, 2009 at 10:27 AM, Ivan Pepelnjak <i...@ioshints.info> wrote: > Let me be the devil's advocate: why would you need full Internet routing? > Taking reasonably sized neighborhoods of your upstreams (AS paths up to X > AS > numbers) plus a default to your best upstream might do the trick. > > Ivan > > http://www.ioshints.info/about > http://blog.ioshints.info/ > > > > -----Original Message----- > > From: Mark Radabaugh [mailto:m...@amplex.net] > > Sent: Friday, July 10, 2009 6:42 PM > > To: nanog list > > Subject: BGP Growth projections > > > > I'm looking for new core routers for a small ISP and having a > > hard time > > finding something appropriate and reasonably priced. We don't have > > huge traffic levels (<1Gb) and are mostly running Ethernet > > interfaces to > > upstreams rather than legacy interfaces (when did OC3 become > > legacy?). > > > > Lot's of choices for routers that can handle the existing BGP > > tables - but not so much in small platforms (1-10Gb traffic) > > if you assume that > > IPv6 is going to explode the routing table in the next 5 > > years. The > > manufacturers still seem to think low traffic routers don't > > need much memory or CPU. > > > > What projections are you using regarding the default free > > zone over the next 5 years when picking new hardware? > > > > -- > > > > Mark Radabaugh > > Amplex > > 419.837.5015 x21 > > m...@amplex.net > > > > > > > > > > >