Re: Cisco Router best for full BGP on a sub 5K bidget 7500 7200 or other vendor ?
7206 is one of the _BEST_ Cisco routers, if we compare all parameters ((including numbert of bugs and simplicity). - Original Message - From: Robert E. Seastrom [EMAIL PROTECTED] To: Alexander Hagen [EMAIL PROTECTED] Cc: [EMAIL PROTECTED]; 'Alexei Roudnev' [EMAIL PROTECTED]; 'Mikael Abrahamsson' [EMAIL PROTECTED]; 'Tom (UnitedLayer)' [EMAIL PROTECTED]; [EMAIL PROTECTED]; [EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: Monday, April 26, 2004 4:44 AM Subject: Re: Cisco Router best for full BGP on a sub 5K bidget 7500 7200 or other vendor ? Alexander Hagen [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes: What about a 7505 w/ RSP4/256 and 2 VIP 2-50/128s with 4 PA-FE-TXs. For additional port density a 3550 ? What is better about the 7206 VXR ? Fewer software bugs, simpler platform, half the vertical space in the rack, redundant power supplies, built-in faste on the IO controller (if you get that kind). ---Rob
RE: Cisco Router best for full BGP on a sub 5K bidget 7500 7200 or other vendor ?
Steve; For me this is a gem of insight. Thanks Alexander Hagen Etheric Networks Incorporated, A California Corporation 527 Sixth Street No 371261 Montara CA 94037 Main Line: (650)-728-3375 Direct Line: (650) 728-3086 Cell: (650) 740-0650 (Does not work at our office in Montara) Home: (Emgcy or weekends) 650-728-5820 fax: (650) 240-1750 http://www.etheric.net -Original Message- From: Steve Gibbard [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: Monday, April 26, 2004 12:43 PM To: Alexander Hagen Cc: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Subject: RE: Cisco Router best for full BGP on a sub 5K bidget 7500 7200 or other vendor ? Reading this thread, it looks to me like everybody's discussing the one true router for doing BGP, without regard to any other requirements that may exist in this situation. Being able to take a full BGP table in a Cisco is simply a matter of having enough memory. We're using 1760s as the current generation of PCH route collectors, and they're working quite nicely. For anybody who only wants to route a few Mb/s of traffic with a fairly simple network topology, just about anything with enough interfaces and at least 192 MB of RAM should work. As the network topology gets more complex or the traffic volumes increase, it becomes a matter of finding the router that fits the topology and can handle the traffic volume, while BGP capability becomes a minor concern. First, figure out whether you want a router or a switch: Are you doing anything that requires a router to isolate different switch networks (hooking 20 or 30 or more switches together can cause some intersting issues...)? Do you have the sorts of flows that make a switch that routes advantageous? Does the ability to assign ports to lots of arbitrary VLAN interfaces without having to trunk the router to an external switch appeal to you? Then figure out how much traffic you want the router to be able to handle. Average load probably isn't nearly as much of a concern as peak load. It's also worth considering what sorts of traffic surges or DOS attacks you want to be able to survive, since those may push your traffic volumes well above your usual peaks. At that point, there's still a bunch of research to do, in terms of what meets your requirements and what's available within your budget, but it makes it much easier to say whether a given platform that's available for the right price will work. -Steve On Sun, 25 Apr 2004, Alexander Hagen wrote: I bought a Riverstone Rs-3000 for BGP with a single upstream provider. Great Deal. Now I am back to the Cisco Question. I have two options within my budget: 1) Catalyst 6006 w/ CATALYST 6000 SUPERVISOR ENGINE 1-A, 2GE, PLUS MSFC PFC 2) CATALYST WS-X6248-RJ45, 48-PORT 10/100 FAST ETHERNET SWITCHING MODULE 3) DRAM UPGRADE to 256 on Supe Card. This system costs somewhere around 1300.00 more than a: Cisco 7505 w RSP4 256 Plus (2) VIP 2-50/128 and 3 PA-FE-TX Obviously the Catalyst is a better unit. But will it be as burned in and robust as the venerable 7505 ? I need to order by Monday A.M. as the router we have now - a 4840G is an extremely weird beast. Thanks Alexander Hagen Etheric Networks Incorporated, A California Corporation -Original Message- From: Robert E. Seastrom [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: Monday, February 09, 2004 4:59 PM To: Tom (UnitedLayer) Cc: Alexander Hagen; [EMAIL PROTECTED] Subject: Re: Cisco Router best for full BGP on a sub 5K bidget 7500 7200 or other vendor ? Tom (UnitedLayer) [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes: On Sun, 8 Feb 2004, Alexander Hagen wrote: The PA-2FE-TX is about 1600.00- better to get a second PA-FE-TX with second VIP2-50 Now why is the CX-FEIP-2TX so much cheaper than the PA-2FE-TX ? I believe because the CX-FEIP-2TX is a full length card. The PA-2FE-TX also isn't able to handle a full 100Mbps per port, so don't be suprised if it doesn't work well :) VIP2/50 is a much better combo. The reason that the CX-FEIP-2TX is so inexpensive is that it is interesting mainly as a curiousity of transitional technology. A CX-FEIP-2TX is VIP1, not a VIP2 (even a 2-15 or 2-20), and is incapable of being upgraded to do distributed anything, (cef, flow, whatever). It barely does full-duplex at line rate on one port, let alone two. Its sole use, if you happen to like to keep old hardware around, is that it will work in a 7000/7010 with RP/[S]SP, (ie, not an RSP). You can use them in a 7500 (or a 7000 with an RSP7k), but why would you want to? ---Rob
RE: Cisco Router best for full BGP on a sub 5K bidget 7500 7200 or other vendor ?
What about a 7505 w/ RSP4/256 and 2 VIP 2-50/128s with 4 PA-FE-TXs. For additional port density a 3550 ? What is better about the 7206 VXR ? Alexander Hagen Etheric Networks Incorporated, A California Corporation 527 Sixth Street No 371261 Montara CA 94037 Main Line: (650)-728-3375 Direct Line: (650) 728-3086 Cell: (650) 740-0650 (Does not work at our office in Montara) Home: (Emgcy or weekends) 650-728-5820 fax: (650) 240-1750 http://www.etheric.net -Original Message- From: Charlie Khanna - NextWeb [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: Sunday, April 25, 2004 11:14 PM To: 'Alexei Roudnev'; 'Alexander Hagen'; 'Mikael Abrahamsson' Cc: 'Robert E. Seastrom'; 'Tom (UnitedLayer)'; [EMAIL PROTECTED] Subject: RE: Cisco Router best for full BGP on a sub 5K bidget 7500 7200 or other vendor ? Depending on the role of the device a 3550 'might' work out fine. For example, if you have a base station and you have route-reflection setup, a 3550 might work fine. However, you cannot put a 3550 at the PAIX (colo) and expect to run full BGP with upstream peers. I really think you should go with a 7206VXR-300 as a low end BGP solution. It will provide you the following that the 3550 will not: 1) Scalability and WAN connectivity. For example, if you need to terminate a DS3, you can do that with a 7206, but not a 3550. 2) You cannot run MPLS or IPv6 on a 3550 as it's not supported on this platform. 3) 7206-VXR chassis (hot-swap), with an NPE 300, can be upgraded to an NPE-400, and then to an NPE-1G (if you need it to). -Charlie -Original Message- From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of Alexei Roudnev Sent: Sunday, April 25, 2004 10:31 PM To: Alexander Hagen; 'Mikael Abrahamsson' Cc: 'Robert E. Seastrom'; 'Tom (UnitedLayer)'; [EMAIL PROTECTED] Subject: Re: Cisco Router best for full BGP on a sub 5K bidget 7500 7200 or other vendor ? Hmm; why do you want to keep BGP on a switch instead of installing separate router? Do you have a very wide uplink (uplinks)? // I do not object an idea. Yes. I've been looking at it and a 7505 with a 3550 behind it seems the way to go for our type of operation. As a cost cutting alternative - has anyone played with the 2900 XL series using sub interfaces to turn them into virtual router ports ? or vlan groups ? Is it better to just buy a 3550 ? Alexander Hagen Etheric Networks Incorporated, A California Corporation 527 Sixth Street No 371261 Montara CA 94037 Main Line: (650)-728-3375 Direct Line: (650) 728-3086 Cell: (650) 740-0650 (Does not work at our office in Montara) Home: (Emgcy or weekends) 650-728-5820 fax: (650) 240-1750 http://www.etheric.net -Original Message- From: Mikael Abrahamsson [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: Sunday, April 25, 2004 5:09 AM To: Alexander Hagen Cc: 'Robert E. Seastrom'; 'Tom (UnitedLayer)'; [EMAIL PROTECTED] Subject: RE: Cisco Router best for full BGP on a sub 5K bidget 7500 7200 or other vendor ? On Sun, 25 Apr 2004, Alexander Hagen wrote: 1) Catalyst 6006 w/ CATALYST 6000 SUPERVISOR ENGINE 1-A, 2GE, PLUS MSFC PFC Yuck. Unless you have very few flows you do not want to use MSFC1/PFC1. This platform would be good for a file server with few but highspeed flows. This system costs somewhere around 1300.00 more than a: Cisco 7505 w RSP4 256 Plus (2) VIP 2-50/128 and 3 PA-FE-TX Obviously the Catalyst is a better unit. But will it be as burned in and robust as the venerable 7505 ? The 7505 will probably handle lots of flows massively better than the SUP1A. -- Mikael Abrahamssonemail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: Cisco Router best for full BGP on a sub 5K bidget 7500 7200 or other vendor ?
Alexander Hagen [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes: What about a 7505 w/ RSP4/256 and 2 VIP 2-50/128s with 4 PA-FE-TXs. For additional port density a 3550 ? What is better about the 7206 VXR ? Fewer software bugs, simpler platform, half the vertical space in the rack, redundant power supplies, built-in faste on the IO controller (if you get that kind). ---Rob
RE: Cisco Router best for full BGP on a sub 5K bidget 7500 7200 or other vendor ?
Alexander Hagen What about a 7505 w/ RSP4/256 and 2 VIP 2-50/128s with 4 PA-FE-TXs. I would get a 7507 w/redundant RSPs and redundant PS. For additional port density a 3550 ? Even a 2650 would do What is better about the 7206 VXR ? Fewer software bugs, Not in my experience. simpler platform, half the vertical space in the rack, redundant power supplies, Indeed. The part I missed earlier is that I think Alexander needs to buy the platform. As of today I can not recommend buying any 7500 as even the 7507 and the 7513 are going to EOL sooner or later. If you can't afford a 7603, then the 7206VXR with NPE400G and a gigabit trunk to a 3550 is what I would do.
RE: Cisco Router best for full BGP on a sub 5K bidget 7500 7200 or other vendor ?
On Mon, 26 Apr 2004, Michel Py wrote: Alexander Hagen What about a 7505 w/ RSP4/256 and 2 VIP 2-50/128s with 4 PA-FE-TXs. I would get a 7507 w/redundant RSPs and redundant PS. You'd get a 7507 (only if it were a choice between that or a 7505?), but then at the end of your message, you say you wouldn't buy any 7500? What is better about the 7206 VXR ? Fewer software bugs, Not in my experience. A couple 'advantages' to the 7206 are much smaller size mass. The 7206 is single person portable. The 7507 and 7513 are very much larger and much more massive. You'll never see someone running down the street away from your data center with a 7507 under their arm. The part I missed earlier is that I think Alexander needs to buy the platform. As of today I can not recommend buying any 7500 as even the 7507 and the 7513 are going to EOL sooner or later. If you can't afford a 7603, then the 7206VXR with NPE400G and a gigabit trunk to a 3550 is what I would do. A basic 7507 (dual PS, dual RSP4, couple of VIPs and PAs) is so cheap today, if he's strapped for cash, that's what I'd go for. I'm guessing you can still get at least several years out of such a box, and by the time you've outgrown it or cisco stops making IOS for it (they still make IOS for AS5200's!), hopefully you'll have the cashflow to upgrade. -- Jon Lewis [EMAIL PROTECTED]| I route Senior Network Engineer | therefore you are Atlantic Net| _ http://www.lewis.org/~jlewis/pgp for PGP public key_
Re: Cisco Router best for full BGP on a sub 5K bidget 7500 7200 or other vendor ?
Just be sure you have the VIP's that can handle any features you need or you plan to run with dCEF off and let the RSP do the work. And that's true as long as you are not running features on that platform that require dCEF. That's the most common deployment mistake I see made with the 75xx nowadays. People want to move to dCEF to get added feature capability or either run a new feature that requires dCEF and they don't consider the extra load on the VIP CPU's that is required. There is no hardware assisted forwaring on a 75xx so it's pure software and CPU speed to do features. Rodney On Mon, Apr 26, 2004 at 02:11:04PM -0400, [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: On Mon, 26 Apr 2004, Michel Py wrote: Alexander Hagen What about a 7505 w/ RSP4/256 and 2 VIP 2-50/128s with 4 PA-FE-TXs. I would get a 7507 w/redundant RSPs and redundant PS. You'd get a 7507 (only if it were a choice between that or a 7505?), but then at the end of your message, you say you wouldn't buy any 7500? What is better about the 7206 VXR ? Fewer software bugs, Not in my experience. A couple 'advantages' to the 7206 are much smaller size mass. The 7206 is single person portable. The 7507 and 7513 are very much larger and much more massive. You'll never see someone running down the street away from your data center with a 7507 under their arm. The part I missed earlier is that I think Alexander needs to buy the platform. As of today I can not recommend buying any 7500 as even the 7507 and the 7513 are going to EOL sooner or later. If you can't afford a 7603, then the 7206VXR with NPE400G and a gigabit trunk to a 3550 is what I would do. A basic 7507 (dual PS, dual RSP4, couple of VIPs and PAs) is so cheap today, if he's strapped for cash, that's what I'd go for. I'm guessing you can still get at least several years out of such a box, and by the time you've outgrown it or cisco stops making IOS for it (they still make IOS for AS5200's!), hopefully you'll have the cashflow to upgrade. -- Jon Lewis [EMAIL PROTECTED]| I route Senior Network Engineer | therefore you are Atlantic Net| _ http://www.lewis.org/~jlewis/pgp for PGP public key_
Re: Cisco Router best for full BGP on a sub 5K bidget 7500 7200 or other vendor ?
On Mon, 26 Apr 2004, Rodney Dunn wrote: That's the most common deployment mistake I see made with the 75xx nowadays. People want to move to dCEF to get added feature capability or either run a new feature that requires dCEF and they don't consider the extra load on the VIP CPU's that is required. Does dCEF use much more CPU on the VIPs or just memory (to store the fowarwarding table on the VIP)? My experience has been that a 7500 with RSP4's and VIP2-50's (with dCEF) will handle much more packet forwarding than a 7206VXR NPE300...but with full BGP routes, you need at least 64mb (preferably 128mb) on the VIPs or you can't use dCEF. Not using dCEF largely defeats the purpose of using a 7500, doesn't it? -- Jon Lewis [EMAIL PROTECTED]| I route Senior Network Engineer | therefore you are Atlantic Net| _ http://www.lewis.org/~jlewis/pgp for PGP public key_
RE: Cisco Router best for full BGP on a sub 5K bidget 7500 7200 or other vendor ?
Reading this thread, it looks to me like everybody's discussing the one true router for doing BGP, without regard to any other requirements that may exist in this situation. Being able to take a full BGP table in a Cisco is simply a matter of having enough memory. We're using 1760s as the current generation of PCH route collectors, and they're working quite nicely. For anybody who only wants to route a few Mb/s of traffic with a fairly simple network topology, just about anything with enough interfaces and at least 192 MB of RAM should work. As the network topology gets more complex or the traffic volumes increase, it becomes a matter of finding the router that fits the topology and can handle the traffic volume, while BGP capability becomes a minor concern. First, figure out whether you want a router or a switch: Are you doing anything that requires a router to isolate different switch networks (hooking 20 or 30 or more switches together can cause some intersting issues...)? Do you have the sorts of flows that make a switch that routes advantageous? Does the ability to assign ports to lots of arbitrary VLAN interfaces without having to trunk the router to an external switch appeal to you? Then figure out how much traffic you want the router to be able to handle. Average load probably isn't nearly as much of a concern as peak load. It's also worth considering what sorts of traffic surges or DOS attacks you want to be able to survive, since those may push your traffic volumes well above your usual peaks. At that point, there's still a bunch of research to do, in terms of what meets your requirements and what's available within your budget, but it makes it much easier to say whether a given platform that's available for the right price will work. -Steve On Sun, 25 Apr 2004, Alexander Hagen wrote: I bought a Riverstone Rs-3000 for BGP with a single upstream provider. Great Deal. Now I am back to the Cisco Question. I have two options within my budget: 1) Catalyst 6006 w/ CATALYST 6000 SUPERVISOR ENGINE 1-A, 2GE, PLUS MSFC PFC 2) CATALYST WS-X6248-RJ45, 48-PORT 10/100 FAST ETHERNET SWITCHING MODULE 3) DRAM UPGRADE to 256 on Supe Card. This system costs somewhere around 1300.00 more than a: Cisco 7505 w RSP4 256 Plus (2) VIP 2-50/128 and 3 PA-FE-TX Obviously the Catalyst is a better unit. But will it be as burned in and robust as the venerable 7505 ? I need to order by Monday A.M. as the router we have now - a 4840G is an extremely weird beast. Thanks Alexander Hagen Etheric Networks Incorporated, A California Corporation -Original Message- From: Robert E. Seastrom [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: Monday, February 09, 2004 4:59 PM To: Tom (UnitedLayer) Cc: Alexander Hagen; [EMAIL PROTECTED] Subject: Re: Cisco Router best for full BGP on a sub 5K bidget 7500 7200 or other vendor ? Tom (UnitedLayer) [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes: On Sun, 8 Feb 2004, Alexander Hagen wrote: The PA-2FE-TX is about 1600.00- better to get a second PA-FE-TX with second VIP2-50 Now why is the CX-FEIP-2TX so much cheaper than the PA-2FE-TX ? I believe because the CX-FEIP-2TX is a full length card. The PA-2FE-TX also isn't able to handle a full 100Mbps per port, so don't be suprised if it doesn't work well :) VIP2/50 is a much better combo. The reason that the CX-FEIP-2TX is so inexpensive is that it is interesting mainly as a curiousity of transitional technology. A CX-FEIP-2TX is VIP1, not a VIP2 (even a 2-15 or 2-20), and is incapable of being upgraded to do distributed anything, (cef, flow, whatever). It barely does full-duplex at line rate on one port, let alone two. Its sole use, if you happen to like to keep old hardware around, is that it will work in a 7000/7010 with RP/[S]SP, (ie, not an RSP). You can use them in a 7500 (or a 7000 with an RSP7k), but why would you want to? ---Rob
Re: Cisco Router best for full BGP on a sub 5K bidget 7500 7200 or other vendor ?
In an effort to keep from getting too vendor specific on nanog I'll respond to you offline. My initial response to Alex was aimed at giving him something else to consider from a gotcha perspective along with his other requirements. Rodney On Mon, Apr 26, 2004 at 03:50:45PM -0400, [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: On Mon, 26 Apr 2004, Rodney Dunn wrote: That's the most common deployment mistake I see made with the 75xx nowadays. People want to move to dCEF to get added feature capability or either run a new feature that requires dCEF and they don't consider the extra load on the VIP CPU's that is required. Does dCEF use much more CPU on the VIPs or just memory (to store the fowarwarding table on the VIP)? My experience has been that a 7500 with RSP4's and VIP2-50's (with dCEF) will handle much more packet forwarding than a 7206VXR NPE300...but with full BGP routes, you need at least 64mb (preferably 128mb) on the VIPs or you can't use dCEF. Not using dCEF largely defeats the purpose of using a 7500, doesn't it? -- Jon Lewis [EMAIL PROTECTED]| I route Senior Network Engineer | therefore you are Atlantic Net| _ http://www.lewis.org/~jlewis/pgp for PGP public key_
RE: Cisco Router best for full BGP on a sub 5K bidget 7500 7200 or other vendor ?
--- Michel Py [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: The part I missed earlier is that I think Alexander needs to buy the platform. As of today I can not recommend buying any 7500 as even the 7507 and the 7513 are going to EOL sooner or later. If you can't afford a 7603, then the 7206VXR with NPE400G and a gigabit trunk to a 3550 is what I would do. It's always worth taking a look at multiple vendors: the m7i is a lot of power for not so much money, relatively speaking, although you won't find much on the ebay-market... -David Barak -Fully RFC 1925 Compliant- __ Do you Yahoo!? Win a $20,000 Career Makeover at Yahoo! HotJobs http://hotjobs.sweepstakes.yahoo.com/careermakeover
RE: Cisco Router best for full BGP on a sub 5K bidget 7500 7200 or other vendor ?
David Barak wrote: the m7i is a lot of power for not so much money, If you know of one for sale for 5K, please let me know. Rodney Dunn wrote: That's the most common deployment mistake I see made with the 75xx nowadays. People want to move to dCEF to get added feature capability or either run a new feature that requires dCEF and they don't consider the extra load on the VIP CPU's that is required. [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Does dCEF use much more CPU on the VIPs or just memory (to store the fowarwarding table on the VIP)? Oh yes. And there are plenty of ways to mess it up, too. I never dared running things such as QoS policy propagation via BGP plus dCAR/dwRED on a 7500. Maybe on a VIP6, any takers? On a VIP2-50/128 as Alexander mentioned, fugged about any extra features. My experience has been that a 7500 with RSP4's and VIP2-50's (with dCEF) will handle much more packet forwarding than a 7206VXR NPE300... This is true but only if you're not fancy. VIP2-50 is a 200Mhz R5000, that's slightly better than a 3640, not fast by any means. That's what you find in a PDA these days. Just handling traffic for two FE PAs will get it pretty busy already. but with full BGP routes, you need at least 64mb (preferably 128mb) on the VIPs or you can't use dCEF. Not using dCEF largely defeats the purpose of using a 7500, doesn't it? Indeed. You'd get a 7507 (only if it were a choice between that or a 7505?), but then at the end of your message, you say you wouldn't buy any 7500? Only if it were a choice between that and a 7505. A basic 7507 (dual PS, dual RSP4, couple of VIPs and PAs) is so cheap today, if he's strapped for cash, that's what I'd go for. I'm guessing you can still get at least several years out of such a box, and by the time you've outgrown it or cisco stops making IOS for it (they still make IOS for AS5200's!), hopefully you'll have the cashflow to upgrade. That summarizes is well, it's a pay me now or pay me later thing. The 7206 might be a little pricier but it will last longer, and that's one thing to take into account when capexing hardware. The bottom line is that as of today and given 400Mbps of traffic it does cost big buck$ to upgrade the 7500 to RSP16 and VIP6 to be able to run everything, and that would not be a wise investment I think. Michel.
RE: Cisco Router best for full BGP on a sub 5K bidget 7500 7200 or other vendor ?
I bought a Riverstone Rs-3000 for BGP with a single upstream provider. Great Deal. Now I am back to the Cisco Question. I have two options within my budget: 1) Catalyst 6006 w/ CATALYST 6000 SUPERVISOR ENGINE 1-A, 2GE, PLUS MSFC PFC 2) CATALYST WS-X6248-RJ45, 48-PORT 10/100 FAST ETHERNET SWITCHING MODULE 3) DRAM UPGRADE to 256 on Supe Card. This system costs somewhere around 1300.00 more than a: Cisco 7505 w RSP4 256 Plus (2) VIP 2-50/128 and 3 PA-FE-TX Obviously the Catalyst is a better unit. But will it be as burned in and robust as the venerable 7505 ? I need to order by Monday A.M. as the router we have now - a 4840G is an extremely weird beast. Thanks Alexander Hagen Etheric Networks Incorporated, A California Corporation -Original Message- From: Robert E. Seastrom [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: Monday, February 09, 2004 4:59 PM To: Tom (UnitedLayer) Cc: Alexander Hagen; [EMAIL PROTECTED] Subject: Re: Cisco Router best for full BGP on a sub 5K bidget 7500 7200 or other vendor ? Tom (UnitedLayer) [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes: On Sun, 8 Feb 2004, Alexander Hagen wrote: The PA-2FE-TX is about 1600.00- better to get a second PA-FE-TX with second VIP2-50 Now why is the CX-FEIP-2TX so much cheaper than the PA-2FE-TX ? I believe because the CX-FEIP-2TX is a full length card. The PA-2FE-TX also isn't able to handle a full 100Mbps per port, so don't be suprised if it doesn't work well :) VIP2/50 is a much better combo. The reason that the CX-FEIP-2TX is so inexpensive is that it is interesting mainly as a curiousity of transitional technology. A CX-FEIP-2TX is VIP1, not a VIP2 (even a 2-15 or 2-20), and is incapable of being upgraded to do distributed anything, (cef, flow, whatever). It barely does full-duplex at line rate on one port, let alone two. Its sole use, if you happen to like to keep old hardware around, is that it will work in a 7000/7010 with RP/[S]SP, (ie, not an RSP). You can use them in a 7500 (or a 7000 with an RSP7k), but why would you want to? ---Rob
Re: Cisco Router best for full BGP on a sub 5K bidget 7500 7200 or other vendor ?
Alexander Hagen wrote: I bought a Riverstone Rs-3000 for BGP with a single upstream provider. Great Deal. Yeah, it might be a Great Deal (tm), but you're in for some surprises. I've seen an RS-8600 (with CM3 and 512MB on board) nearly melt under 13Mbps of Nachi, to the point that I had to set the CM failover keepalive timer to 30 seconds. We had a failover one night due to CPU exhaustion - I think the route reconvergence was actually worse than the performance of the box prior to the failover, but that's just my opinion. I've also seen the same unit nearly melt under 9Mbps of SQL Slammer - the CPU was so busy setting up flows that it was unable to rate limit this customer to 1Mbps or anywhere close. On a box with a 64Gbps backplane, I'm certainly not impressed, though I guess if I just used it as a switch it'd be happy. Plus, you'll have a whole new learning curve for BGP. Wanna use a route map outbound? Expect it to reference the whole RIB, not just the BGP routes you've learned, redistributed, or flagged locally for announcement. Wanna edit a route map? sh run groups similar commands together, but sorts them in the order they were input, regardless of route map name and/or sequence number. The only strong point that jumps out is the ability to comment - I just wrote ALL of the route maps I thought I'd need and commented the maintenance and emergency segments before deploying it. And I guess cascading route maps on BGP sessions is a benefit, at least to overcome the CLI sorting. pt
RE: Cisco Router best for full BGP on a sub 5K bidget 7500 7200 or other vendor ?
On Sun, 25 Apr 2004, Alexander Hagen wrote: 1) Catalyst 6006 w/ CATALYST 6000 SUPERVISOR ENGINE 1-A, 2GE, PLUS MSFC PFC Yuck. Unless you have very few flows you do not want to use MSFC1/PFC1. This platform would be good for a file server with few but highspeed flows. This system costs somewhere around 1300.00 more than a: Cisco 7505 w RSP4 256 Plus (2) VIP 2-50/128 and 3 PA-FE-TX Obviously the Catalyst is a better unit. But will it be as burned in and robust as the venerable 7505 ? The 7505 will probably handle lots of flows massively better than the SUP1A. -- Mikael Abrahamssonemail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
RE: Cisco Router best for full BGP on a sub 5K bidget 7500 7200 or other vendor ?
Yes. I've been looking at it and a 7505 with a 3550 behind it seems the way to go for our type of operation. As a cost cutting alternative - has anyone played with the 2900 XL series using sub interfaces to turn them into virtual router ports ? or vlan groups ? Is it better to just buy a 3550 ? Alexander Hagen Etheric Networks Incorporated, A California Corporation 527 Sixth Street No 371261 Montara CA 94037 Main Line: (650)-728-3375 Direct Line: (650) 728-3086 Cell: (650) 740-0650 (Does not work at our office in Montara) Home: (Emgcy or weekends) 650-728-5820 fax: (650) 240-1750 http://www.etheric.net -Original Message- From: Mikael Abrahamsson [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: Sunday, April 25, 2004 5:09 AM To: Alexander Hagen Cc: 'Robert E. Seastrom'; 'Tom (UnitedLayer)'; [EMAIL PROTECTED] Subject: RE: Cisco Router best for full BGP on a sub 5K bidget 7500 7200 or other vendor ? On Sun, 25 Apr 2004, Alexander Hagen wrote: 1) Catalyst 6006 w/ CATALYST 6000 SUPERVISOR ENGINE 1-A, 2GE, PLUS MSFC PFC Yuck. Unless you have very few flows you do not want to use MSFC1/PFC1. This platform would be good for a file server with few but highspeed flows. This system costs somewhere around 1300.00 more than a: Cisco 7505 w RSP4 256 Plus (2) VIP 2-50/128 and 3 PA-FE-TX Obviously the Catalyst is a better unit. But will it be as burned in and robust as the venerable 7505 ? The 7505 will probably handle lots of flows massively better than the SUP1A. -- Mikael Abrahamssonemail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
RE: Cisco Router best for full BGP on a sub 5K bidget 7500 7200 or other vendor ?
Alexander Hagen As a cost cutting alternative - has anyone played with the 2900 XL series using sub interfaces to turn them into virtual router ports ? routing on a stick. As long as you understand that the aggregate bandwidth can't be more than the port you hook too, fine. On a 7500, you need your FE on a real VIP, not the legacy FE blade that was the precursor to the VIP2. Although there is a later version that's ISL capable, the performance is not there. Michel.
RE: Cisco Router best for full BGP on a sub 5K bidget 7500 7200 or other vendor ?
The MSFC1 is a useless thing, and it is (more or less) impossible to get a full BGP route view. S1A-MSFC2 is minimum. On Sun, 25 Apr 2004, Alexander Hagen wrote: I bought a Riverstone Rs-3000 for BGP with a single upstream provider. Great Deal. Now I am back to the Cisco Question. I have two options within my budget: 1) Catalyst 6006 w/ CATALYST 6000 SUPERVISOR ENGINE 1-A, 2GE, PLUS MSFC PFC 2) CATALYST WS-X6248-RJ45, 48-PORT 10/100 FAST ETHERNET SWITCHING MODULE 3) DRAM UPGRADE to 256 on Supe Card.
Re: Cisco Router best for full BGP on a sub 5K bidget 7500 7200 or other vendor ?
Hmm; why do you want to keep BGP on a switch instead of installing separate router? Do you have a very wide uplink (uplinks)? // I do not object an idea. Yes. I've been looking at it and a 7505 with a 3550 behind it seems the way to go for our type of operation. As a cost cutting alternative - has anyone played with the 2900 XL series using sub interfaces to turn them into virtual router ports ? or vlan groups ? Is it better to just buy a 3550 ? Alexander Hagen Etheric Networks Incorporated, A California Corporation 527 Sixth Street No 371261 Montara CA 94037 Main Line: (650)-728-3375 Direct Line: (650) 728-3086 Cell: (650) 740-0650 (Does not work at our office in Montara) Home: (Emgcy or weekends) 650-728-5820 fax: (650) 240-1750 http://www.etheric.net -Original Message- From: Mikael Abrahamsson [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: Sunday, April 25, 2004 5:09 AM To: Alexander Hagen Cc: 'Robert E. Seastrom'; 'Tom (UnitedLayer)'; [EMAIL PROTECTED] Subject: RE: Cisco Router best for full BGP on a sub 5K bidget 7500 7200 or other vendor ? On Sun, 25 Apr 2004, Alexander Hagen wrote: 1) Catalyst 6006 w/ CATALYST 6000 SUPERVISOR ENGINE 1-A, 2GE, PLUS MSFC PFC Yuck. Unless you have very few flows you do not want to use MSFC1/PFC1. This platform would be good for a file server with few but highspeed flows. This system costs somewhere around 1300.00 more than a: Cisco 7505 w RSP4 256 Plus (2) VIP 2-50/128 and 3 PA-FE-TX Obviously the Catalyst is a better unit. But will it be as burned in and robust as the venerable 7505 ? The 7505 will probably handle lots of flows massively better than the SUP1A. -- Mikael Abrahamssonemail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: Cisco Router best for full BGP on a sub 5K bidget 7500 7200 or other vendor ?
hmm; why do you keep questioning people how to run their own networks? step 1. know the limits of your devices step 2. know the limits and purpose of each routing protocols step 3. test test test step 4. does it work for you? if yes: do it, if no: don't it may be entirely approprirate to have a L3 switch run bgp just for internal / small number of prefixes, or for other reasons, depends on the hardware limits and configuration of your topology. getting back to the topic, 2950 switches can create dot1q vlan tags, so can 3500. so can 2900XL but never tried myself.. -J On Sun, Apr 25, 2004 at 10:31:25PM -0700, Alexei Roudnev wrote: Hmm; why do you want to keep BGP on a switch instead of installing separate router? Do you have a very wide uplink (uplinks)? // I do not object an idea. Yes. I've been looking at it and a 7505 with a 3550 behind it seems the way to go for our type of operation. As a cost cutting alternative - has anyone played with the 2900 XL series using sub interfaces to turn them into virtual router ports ? or vlan groups ? Is it better to just buy a 3550 ? Alexander Hagen Etheric Networks Incorporated, A California Corporation 527 Sixth Street No 371261 Montara CA 94037 Main Line: (650)-728-3375 Direct Line: (650) 728-3086 Cell: (650) 740-0650 (Does not work at our office in Montara) Home: (Emgcy or weekends) 650-728-5820 fax: (650) 240-1750 http://www.etheric.net -Original Message- From: Mikael Abrahamsson [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: Sunday, April 25, 2004 5:09 AM To: Alexander Hagen Cc: 'Robert E. Seastrom'; 'Tom (UnitedLayer)'; [EMAIL PROTECTED] Subject: RE: Cisco Router best for full BGP on a sub 5K bidget 7500 7200 or other vendor ? On Sun, 25 Apr 2004, Alexander Hagen wrote: 1) Catalyst 6006 w/ CATALYST 6000 SUPERVISOR ENGINE 1-A, 2GE, PLUS MSFC PFC Yuck. Unless you have very few flows you do not want to use MSFC1/PFC1. This platform would be good for a file server with few but highspeed flows. This system costs somewhere around 1300.00 more than a: Cisco 7505 w RSP4 256 Plus (2) VIP 2-50/128 and 3 PA-FE-TX Obviously the Catalyst is a better unit. But will it be as burned in and robust as the venerable 7505 ? The 7505 will probably handle lots of flows massively better than the SUP1A. -- Mikael Abrahamssonemail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] -- James JunTowardEX Technologies, Inc. Technical LeadNetwork Design, Consulting, IT Outsourcing [EMAIL PROTECTED] Boston-based Colocation Bandwidth Services cell: 1(978)-394-2867 web: http://www.towardex.com , noc: www.twdx.net
RE: Cisco Router best for full BGP on a sub 5K bidget 7500 7200 or other vendor ?
Well this has been quite a stimulating discussion! It appears the sweet spot would be as follows: 7507 Dual A/C Power.~ 750 Dual RSP4 with 256 MEM .~900 VIP2-50 with 128 MB RAM.~400 Now this can all be obtained for about 2000.00 perhaps... The problem is the Fast Ethernet Interfaces CX-FEIP-2TX ( 400?) PA-FE-TX (250) The PA-2FE-TX is about 1600.00- better to get a second PA-FE-TX with second VIP2-50 Now why is the CX-FEIP-2TX so much cheaper than the PA-2FE-TX ? Alexander Hagen Etheric Networks Incorporated, A California Corporation 527 Sixth Street No 371261 Montara CA 94037 Main Line: (650)-728-3375 Direct Line: (650) 728-3086 Cell: (650) 740-0650 (Does not work at our office in Montara) Home: (Emgcy or weekends) 650-728-5820 fax: (650) 240-1750 http://www.etheric.net -Original Message- From: Roldan, Brad [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: Sunday, February 08, 2004 12:40 PM To: Alexander Hagen Subject: RE: Cisco Router best for full BGP on a sub 5K bidget 7500 7200 or other vendor ? Alex, I used the RS3000 extensively in a previous life for a Metro E provider. These are great Layer 2 switches. When it comes to Layer 3 services, Riverstone has been lacking. The last firmware revision I looked at was in the 9.x series. At that time, routing protocols, such as BGP, were still evolving in terms of basic support. For instance, at the time BGP communities were not supported. I don't know hoe Riverstone's support for Layer 3 routing has evolved since 9.x. Hope this helps. Brad -- Covad Communications 2510 Zanker Road San Jose, CA 95131 +1-408-434-2048 [EMAIL PROTECTED] -Original Message- From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of Alexander Hagen Sent: Saturday, February 07, 2004 5:49 AM To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Subject: RE: Cisco Router best for full BGP on a sub 5K bidget 7500 7200 or other vendor ? Montara is between Pacifica and Half Moon Bay. Everyone has a different perspective - but all valid. However I would say if you are going to go Cisco - and you have no other BGP gear under Smartnet - you might look at the 3725 maxed out. It is new and you will get support and available for 5,000.00 online, equipped with two onboard Fast Ethernet ports. You are likely to buy only single FE modules at 350.00 rather than 2FE's which are hard to find for cheap, and upgrading memory to 256 Megs DRAM is only an addl 150.00. With that said I found a rather stupid article that gave the Riverstone high marks. http://www.nwfusion.com/reviews/2003/0714rev.html?page=1 http://research.mwjournal.com/data/jspdetail?id=1025118725_252type=PROD src=mwavex=841473789 The RS 3000 has 20 gbps non blocking. I am likely to go with the Riverstone. I think I can get it for under 2K with 24 10/100 ports, 256 MB of memory, and 20 gbps non blocking switching fabric. Although I will likely place a Cisco box behind it (eventually) for IPSec and the like. Platform Features Feature-rich Wire-speed Services * IP routing, unicast, and multicast * Routing in hardware on each line card * LSR and LER MPLS support in hardware * RSVP-TE and LDP label distribution and signaling * MPLS traffic engineering support * Security (ACLs, L2 filters) * Layer 4 application-flow switching and QoS * Network Address Translation (NAT) * Hardware-based Rate Limiting * Jumbo Frame support * VLANs based on port or protocol * Server Load Balancing (LSNAT) Highly Fault Tolerant * Redundant power supplies (RS 3000) * Hot-swappable media modules * Standards-based VRRP * Layer 2 and 3 redundant protocol support Extensive Management * Wire-speed full RMON/RMON2 * SNMP manageable * SSH * RADIUS * TACACS+ * RS-232 (out-of-band management) * Command Line Interface (CLI) Interfaces 10/100 Base-TX 100 Base-FX 1000 Base-SX 1000 Base-LX 1000 Base-TX 1000 Base-LH (70Km) T1/E1 T3/E3 ATM-OC-3c Up to 4,096 VLANs Up to 256,000 routes Up to 20,000 security/access control filters Up to 512,000 Layer 4 application flows Up to 256,000 Layer 2 MAC addresses RS 1000: 12 Gbps non-blocking switching fabric RS 1000: 4.6 million packets per second routing throughput RS 3000: 20 Gbps non-blocking switching fabric RS 3000: 9.5 million packets per second routing throughput MTBF (predicted) 200,000 hours Physical Dimensions: 3.25 H x 17 W x 18.5 D (8.25 cm x 43.2 cm x 47 cm) Weight: 20 lbs. (9.1 kg) Environmental Specifications Operating Temp: +0º to +40ºC (32º to 104ºF) Non-operating Temp: -40º to +70ºC (-40º to 158ºF) Operating Relative 10% to 90% (non-condensing) Humidity: Non-operating 5% to 95% maximum Relative Humidity: (non-condensing) Altitude, Operating 10,000 ft (3,000 m) maximum and Non-operating: Shock and Vibration:GR63 Power Requirements AC Input current: 3.0 A - 1.5 A AC Input voltage: 100 to 240 VAC AC Frequency: 50 to 60 Hz DC Input current: 8.0 A DC Input voltage: -48 to -60 VAC Agency Standards and Specifications Safety: Certified UL1950, CSA C22.2 No. 950, EN60950, IEC950, and 72/73/EEC
RE: Cisco Router best for full BGP on a sub 5K bidget 7500 7200 or other vendor ?
On Sun, 8 Feb 2004, Alexander Hagen wrote: Now why is the CX-FEIP-2TX so much cheaper than the PA-2FE-TX ? I can't say why cisco charges so much for the PA-2FE, but the CX-FEIP-2TX is cheap because it's ancient (EOL'd some time ago) and probably not capable of running both ports at line-rate anyway. Don't buy them unless you're hooking up very low traffic LANs. Your best bet is PA-FE's and enough VIP2-50's for the number of PA-FE's you need. Also, watch out for PA-2FEISL-TX's. They're also not capable of handling both interfaces at line-rate. That's why they're available for just a few hundred $. http://www.cisco.com/warp/public/cc/pd/ifaa/ifpz/prodlit/969_pp.htm -- Jon Lewis [EMAIL PROTECTED]| I route Senior Network Engineer | therefore you are Atlantic Net| _ http://www.lewis.org/~jlewis/pgp for PGP public key_
RE: Cisco Router best for full BGP on a sub 5K bidget 7500 7200 or other vendor ?
On Sun, 8 Feb 2004, Alexander Hagen wrote: The PA-2FE-TX is about 1600.00- better to get a second PA-FE-TX with second VIP2-50 Now why is the CX-FEIP-2TX so much cheaper than the PA-2FE-TX ? I believe because the CX-FEIP-2TX is a full length card. The PA-2FE-TX also isn't able to handle a full 100Mbps per port, so don't be suprised if it doesn't work well :) VIP2/50 is a much better combo.
Re: Cisco Router best for full BGP on a sub 5K bidget 7500 7200 or other vendor ?
Tom (UnitedLayer) [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes: On Sun, 8 Feb 2004, Alexander Hagen wrote: The PA-2FE-TX is about 1600.00- better to get a second PA-FE-TX with second VIP2-50 Now why is the CX-FEIP-2TX so much cheaper than the PA-2FE-TX ? I believe because the CX-FEIP-2TX is a full length card. The PA-2FE-TX also isn't able to handle a full 100Mbps per port, so don't be suprised if it doesn't work well :) VIP2/50 is a much better combo. The reason that the CX-FEIP-2TX is so inexpensive is that it is interesting mainly as a curiousity of transitional technology. A CX-FEIP-2TX is VIP1, not a VIP2 (even a 2-15 or 2-20), and is incapable of being upgraded to do distributed anything, (cef, flow, whatever). It barely does full-duplex at line rate on one port, let alone two. Its sole use, if you happen to like to keep old hardware around, is that it will work in a 7000/7010 with RP/[S]SP, (ie, not an RSP). You can use them in a 7500 (or a 7000 with an RSP7k), but why would you want to? ---Rob
Re: Cisco Router best for full BGP on a sub 5K bidget 7500 7200 or other vendor ?
On 7-feb-04, at 11:48, Alexander Hagen wrote: I have been looking for a sub 5K router on the used market to support around 30-50 megs peak traffic. [...] We are looking at a pure Ethernet environment - but with the desire to support a lot of value added services - such as IPSEC, VoIP, traffic accounting. I would go for the 7200 VXR, if the price works. The 7200 has a nice simple architecture and is still fairly current, unlike the 7500. The fact that everything is done in software saves big time on complexity and power usage. A multilayer switch gives you much more bang and ports for your buck but you pay for that in complexity: harder to configure and monitor (this is especially bad for Cisco layer 3 switches, Foundry, Extreme and Riverstone are better in this regard), trouble because certain features or combinations thereof aren't supported in hardware and you often get into trouble with agressive worm scanning or denial of service attacks. A Juniper gives you the same bang (but not the same number of ports) for a few more bucks but will hold up much better under adverse circumstances. As the saying goes: fast, cheap, good: pick any two. A 7200 is cheap and good, L3 switches are fast and cheap and a Juniper is fast and good.
RE: Cisco Router best for full BGP on a sub 5K bidget 7500 7200 or other vendor ?
Montara is between Pacifica and Half Moon Bay. Everyone has a different perspective - but all valid. However I would say if you are going to go Cisco - and you have no other BGP gear under Smartnet - you might look at the 3725 maxed out. It is new and you will get support and available for 5,000.00 online, equipped with two onboard Fast Ethernet ports. You are likely to buy only single FE modules at 350.00 rather than 2FE's which are hard to find for cheap, and upgrading memory to 256 Megs DRAM is only an addl 150.00. With that said I found a rather stupid article that gave the Riverstone high marks. http://www.nwfusion.com/reviews/2003/0714rev.html?page=1 http://research.mwjournal.com/data/jspdetail?id=1025118725_252type=PROD src=mwavex=841473789 The RS 3000 has 20 gbps non blocking. I am likely to go with the Riverstone. I think I can get it for under 2K with 24 10/100 ports, 256 MB of memory, and 20 gbps non blocking switching fabric. Although I will likely place a Cisco box behind it (eventually) for IPSec and the like. Platform Features Feature-rich Wire-speed Services IP routing, unicast, and multicast Routing in hardware on each line card LSR and LER MPLS support in hardware RSVP-TE and LDP label distribution and signaling MPLS traffic engineering support Security (ACLs, L2 filters) Layer 4 application-flow switching and QoS Network Address Translation (NAT) Hardware-based Rate Limiting Jumbo Frame support VLANs based on port or protocol Server Load Balancing (LSNAT) Highly Fault Tolerant Redundant power supplies (RS 3000) Hot-swappable media modules Standards-based VRRP Layer 2 and 3 redundant protocol support Extensive Management Wire-speed full RMON/RMON2 SNMP manageable SSH RADIUS TACACS+ RS-232 (out-of-band management) Command Line Interface (CLI) Interfaces 10/100 Base-TX 100 Base-FX 1000 Base-SX 1000 Base-LX 1000 Base-TX 1000 Base-LH (70Km) T1/E1 T3/E3 ATM-OC-3c Up to 4,096 VLANs Up to 256,000 routes Up to 20,000 security/access control filters Up to 512,000 Layer 4 application flows Up to 256,000 Layer 2 MAC addresses RS 1000: 12 Gbps non-blocking switching fabric RS 1000: 4.6 million packets per second routing throughput RS 3000: 20 Gbps non-blocking switching fabric RS 3000: 9.5 million packets per second routing throughput MTBF (predicted) 200,000 hours Physical Dimensions: 3.25 H x 17 W x 18.5 D (8.25 cm x 43.2 cm x 47 cm) Weight: 20 lbs. (9.1 kg) Environmental Specifications Operating Temp: +0º to +40ºC (32º to 104ºF) Non-operating Temp: -40º to +70ºC (-40º to 158ºF) Operating Relative 10% to 90% (non-condensing) Humidity: Non-operating 5% to 95% maximum Relative Humidity: (non-condensing) Altitude, Operating 10,000 ft (3,000 m) maximum and Non-operating: Shock and Vibration:GR63 Power Requirements AC Input current: 3.0 A - 1.5 A AC Input voltage: 100 to 240 VAC AC Frequency: 50 to 60 Hz DC Input current: 8.0 A DC Input voltage: -48 to -60 VAC Agency Standards and Specifications Safety: Certified UL1950, CSA C22.2 No. 950, EN60950, IEC950, and 72/73/EEC Electromagnetic Compliant with the requirements of compatibility: FCC Part 15, CSA C108.8, EN55022, VCCI, EN50082-1, and 89/336/EEC Standards Supported IETF Standards Support RFC No. Title RFC 768 UDP RFC 783 TFTPv2 RFC 791 IP RFC 792 ICMP RFC 793 TCP RFC 826 ARP RFC 854 Telnet RFC 951 BootP RFC 1058 RIP v1 RFC 1075 DVMRP RFC 1112 Host Extensions for IP Multicasting RFC 1157 SNMPv1 RFC 1195 Use of OSI IS-IS for Routing in TCP/IP and Dual Environments RFC 1245 OSPF Protocol Analysis RFC 1246 Experience with the OSPF Protocol RFC 1256 ICMP Router Discover Message RFC 1265 BGP Protocol Analysis RFC 1266 Experience with the BGP Protocol RFC 1267 BGP-3 RFC 1269 Definitions of Managed Objects for BGP-3 RFC 1332 PPP IPCP RFC 1349 Type of Service in the Internet Protocol Suite RFC 1397 Default Route Advertisement in BGP-2 and BGP-3 RFC 1403 BGP OSPF Interaction RFC 1519 CIDR: an Address Assignment and Aggregation Strategy RFC 1542 Clarifications and Extensions for the Bootstrap Protocol RFC 1552 PPP IPXCP RFC 1570 PPP LCP Extensions RFC 1586 Guidelines for Running OSPF Over Frame Relay Networks RFC 1587 OSPF NSSA Option RFC 1631 IP NAT RFC 1638 PPP BCP RFC 1657 Definitions of Managed Objects for BGP-4 using SMIv2 RFC 1661 PPP RFC 1662 PPP in HDLC-like Framing RFC 1745 BGP-4/IDRP for IP and OSPF Interaction RFC 1765 OSPF Database Overflow RFC 1771 BGP-4 RFC 1772 Application of BGP in the Internet RFC 1773 Experience with the BGP-4 Protocol RFC 1774 BGP-4 Protocol Analysis RFC 1793 Extending OSPF to Support Demand Circuits RFC 1812 Router Requirements RFC 1918 Address Allocation for Private Internet Space RFC 1923 RIPv1 Applicability Statement for Historic Status RFC 1930 Guidelines for creation, selection, and registration of an AS RFC 1966 BGP Route Reflection Alternative to full mesh IBGP RFC 1990 PPP MLP RFC 1997 BGP Communities Attribute RFC 1998 BGP Community Attribute in
