I would be hesitant to do full tables on an SRX210, particularly if you only have an SRX210B with 512MB of RAM. I'm not sure what filtering would do in terms of memory usage, because I have not tried it. I generally put a separate edge device in to handle the upstream and BGP, and use the SRX purely for firewall. You can even have completely redundant edge routers and redundant firewalls, and mesh them with iBGP. This is the setup we are using in our office (2 Cisco 2821 routers on the edge, and 2 Juniper SRX240H firewalls right behind them). Since each of the 2 uplinks we have are ethernet, I have both routers connected to both providers. This gives us ultimate redundancy at very low cost.
-Randy -- | Randy Carpenter | Vice President - IT Services | Red Hat Certified Engineer | First Network Group, Inc. | (800)578-6381, Opt. 1 ---- ----- Original Message ----- > On 1/18/2011 1:00 PM, William Herrin wrote: > > IMO, that would be a mistake. Taking significantly less than a full > > table severely limits your options for balancing traffic between the > > links. > > > > It should also be noted that taking a full table, doesn't mean you > have > to use the full table. Apply filters to smaller routes or long ASPATHs > that you don't want, and then assign preferences, communities, > prepends, > etc as necessary for the routes you actually accept. > > This means your sync time is longer and you'll have more updates, but > it > will still keep the local routing table much lower. > > > Jack
