Re: Bird vs Quagga revisited (MP-BGP RR)

[Thomas Mangin]

On 23 Aug 2012, at 15:04, Raymond Burkholder r...@oneunified.net wrote:

 To expand the opinion set, how do Quagga, Bird, exaBGP, OpenBGPd hold up for
 handling Multi-Protocol BGP Route Reflector duties in a BGP/MPLS environment
 for a smaller ISP?

I am using BIRD as a RR between a busy VRF and our core and will not change it 
until the PPS are over what the box can pass :)

EuroIX members were presented on a comparison of RR : ASR 1001 / 1002, Bird 
1.3.6 / 1.3.7 / OpenBGPd - Quagga is not in the list as they do not use it , 
they migrated away from it after too many issues AFAICR.

They found that both cisco routers which are designed to be used as RR and BIRD 
were performing very well (even more when you look at what CPU is on those 
cisco routers).

The talk made at Euro-IX was under the password protected section but I found 
it on their site :
http://www.ams-ix.net/downloads/AMS-IX%20Route%20Server%20Implementations%20Performance.pdf

They presented their second testing at RIPE :
https://ripe64.ripe.net/presentations/49-Follow_Up_AMS-IX_route-server_test_Euro-IX_20th_RIPE64.pdf

Thomas

RE: Bird vs Quagga revisited (MP-BGP RR)

[Raymond Burkholder]

 
  Of those who have used Quagga or Bird, or anything else,
  would either of them be appropriate and/or well suited for
  use as an iBGP blackhole route server?
 

To expand the opinion set, how do Quagga, Bird, exaBGP, OpenBGPd hold up for
handling Multi-Protocol BGP Route Reflector duties in a BGP/MPLS environment
for a smaller ISP?  Quagga's documentation indicates that is does handle the
requirements.  Any one able to offer up real life experiences?  Or is it
better to handle in a physical router?  We being C based.

Ray.


-- 
This message has been scanned for viruses and
dangerous content by MailScanner, and is
believed to be clean.