Re: Router for Metro Ethernet
I'd like to see the actual benchmarks. Something similar to routerperformance.pdf spreadsheet, but something more recent. Seems like those resources are alone available for partners. I've been following this thread, but no one has pointed out any documentation yet. Just speculation and personal experiences. Here is what Kapela sent me http://www.cisco.com/web/partners/downloads/765/tools/quickreference/routerperformance.pdf And I also found http://www.cisco.com/web/partners/downloads/765/tools/quickreference/switchperformance.pdf But coincidentally, I'm trying to spec out some gear to terminate 100Mbps metro eth and am wondering how a 4503 with a Sup6 will do (i have that on shelf) or a 4900m with QoS enabled and so on. Or do I need to actually get a proper router for that. I can't find any info on that. Does anyone have any resources that you use to make these decisions? Andrey -- Andrey Khomyakov [khomyakov.and...@gmail.com]
Re: Router for Metro Ethernet
Original Message - From: "Bill Stewart" To: "Tony Varriale" Cc: Sent: Wednesday, April 14, 2010 10:22 AM Subject: Re: Router for Metro Ethernet That's the spec sheet, and that's for straight forwarding. If you want to do much of anything else at all with the router, Cisco has another web page that says they only recommend 45Mbps on the 3845 and something like half that on the 3825. It's especially an issue if you need to do traffic-shaping, which you usually do for MetroE. That's the marketing sheet so you continue to purchase up. But, notice what I said in my original post about CPU. There's only so much of it. So, adjust appropriately for whatever feature you turn on. tv
Re: Router for Metro Ethernet
On Monday 12 April 2010 01:28:45 pm Jeffrey Negro wrote: > Any and all suggestions on the hardware would be greatly appreciated. > Thank you in advance! Well, I've read through this thread as it's unfolded I repurposed some big hardware (that we already had on-hand) to terminate our metro ethernet connection, which replaced a point to point OC3. The carrier was easy to work with, and provisioned the local loop over 1000Base-LX, which I terminated on a 12008 (same router that previously terminated the OC3). Yep, overkill. Until I want IPv6, that is, and then the 1 port GE will be about right for a metro e at less than 100Mb/s bandwidth. And 12000's are beasts for HA. Now, 12000's aren't designed for edges, really, so there's no NAT and some other edge features. And it has a pretty weak CPU for the control plane, especially if it's a GRP. But if you happen to have one on hand. A 7200 NPE-G1 or G2 would work, as would a 7400 if you don't mind older IOS. The 7400 is more than capable of 150Mb/s throughput with features; I have one that had previously terminated the other end of the OC3, which is still there, and still doing NAT and other edge features very well. I was able to saturate the OC3 when it was lit, with features turned on, and the 7400 churned through it quite well, with max CPU hitting 75% or so under the heaviest loads. If you have a 7500 series lying around you can go that route, too, as current 12.4 mainline is still there for the RSP platform. But the HA with 12.4 is not as robust as with 12.0S, and with 12.0S it acts more like a 12000 and less like an edge router. And even the RSP16's CPU is a little weak for heavy edge features. There's a lot of older Cisco kit that will handle 40Mb/s quite well. And, well, Cisco gear is built better than most 'industrial' x86 boxes out there (even if Cisco has shipped 'industrial' x86 boxes before, like the rebranded IBM x Series servers that were labeled 'Content Engines' and the PC's relabeled as LocalDirectors and PIXen of various models; the router platforms have, in my experience at least, been more reliable). As much as I like and use Linux (and I installed SLS from floppy tape back in the day), I rest easier at night with a 12008 terminating the circuit.
Re: Router for Metro Ethernet
On Tue, Apr 13, 2010 at 9:12 PM, Tony Varriale wrote: > > From: "Bill Stewart" > > Be careful using 3845s for 100 Mbps connections or above > The 3825 says 179mbps on their spec sheet. Not sure where you are getting > your numbers but they are way off. > All of those numbers are straight forwarding with nothing turned on and 64 > byte packets. That way you get a nice idea of what the CPU can do. That's the spec sheet, and that's for straight forwarding. If you want to do much of anything else at all with the router, Cisco has another web page that says they only recommend 45Mbps on the 3845 and something like half that on the 3825. It's especially an issue if you need to do traffic-shaping, which you usually do for MetroE. -- Thanks; Bill Note that this isn't my regular email account - It's still experimental so far. And Google probably logs and indexes everything you send it.
Re: Router for Metro Ethernet
> All of those numbers are straight forwarding with nothing turned on > and 64 > byte packets. That way you get a nice idea of what the CPU can do. They're also, as ever, unidirectional, so you can immediately halve them if your question is "what size pipe can I connect this device to?" As a VPN managed CE, with QoS, BGP, a little bit of IPSLA etc, I'm seeing a practical limit of around 70Mb/s bidirectional out of the 3845. Regards, Tim.
Re: Router for Metro Ethernet
> Some caveats: > > 1. only the ME version supports MPLS, in case you want to overlay an > MPLS TE/VPN network on a Metro Ethernet Forum (MEF) ELAN raw Ethernet > service. > 2. If you are using IP multicast, make sure that the Metro Ethernet > provider supports PIM snooping, otherwise (S,G) directed multicast > packets will be flooded out all service provider ports that connect > to > your devices, emulating a 1993-style Ethernet hub. 3. Only "switch-style" QoS, not full-blown MQC. The 3750ME has two "router" ports which do mostly support MQC, but still have some limitations (e.g. traffic locally sourced from the device is not correctly classified / marked). Which is all kind of what you'd expect from a switch, but may be relevent if the original question was "which router?" Regards, Tim.
Re: Router for Metro Ethernet
plz dont go with 3825/3845 unless you need it for voice etc. we have clients run 3825/3845 and they don't work properly beyond 50mbps with traffic shaping. On Wed, Apr 14, 2010 at 12:12 AM, Tony Varriale wrote: > Cisco rates it at 256mbps which places it above a NPE-400. > > The 3825 says 179mbps on their spec sheet. Not sure where you are getting > your numbers but they are way off. > > All of those numbers are straight forwarding with nothing turned on and 64 > byte packets. That way you get a nice idea of what the CPU can do. > > tv > - Original Message - From: "Bill Stewart" > To: > Sent: Monday, April 12, 2010 1:27 PM > Subject: Re: Router for Metro Ethernet > > >> On Mon, Apr 12, 2010 at 10:55 AM, Dylan Ebner >> wrote: >>> >>> However, this router also has 2 100mb connections from local lans that it >>> is also terminiating. >>> For our 100mb metro e connections we use 3845s. The 100 mb service >>> terminates into NM-GEs, which have a faster throughput than the hwics. >> >> Be careful using 3845s for 100 Mbps connections or above - Cisco rates >> them at 45 Mbps (and 3825 at half of that) but last time I checked >> doesn't make any promises at faster than T3. They're being >> conservative about it, but one thing that really can burn the >> horsepower is traffic shaping, which you need with some MetroE >> carriers. >> >> >> -- >> >> Thanks; Bill >> >> Note that this isn't my regular email account - It's still experimental so >> far. >> And Google probably logs and indexes everything you send it. >> > > >
Re: Router for Metro Ethernet
Cisco rates it at 256mbps which places it above a NPE-400. The 3825 says 179mbps on their spec sheet. Not sure where you are getting your numbers but they are way off. All of those numbers are straight forwarding with nothing turned on and 64 byte packets. That way you get a nice idea of what the CPU can do. tv - Original Message - From: "Bill Stewart" To: Sent: Monday, April 12, 2010 1:27 PM Subject: Re: Router for Metro Ethernet On Mon, Apr 12, 2010 at 10:55 AM, Dylan Ebner wrote: However, this router also has 2 100mb connections from local lans that it is also terminiating. For our 100mb metro e connections we use 3845s. The 100 mb service terminates into NM-GEs, which have a faster throughput than the hwics. Be careful using 3845s for 100 Mbps connections or above - Cisco rates them at 45 Mbps (and 3825 at half of that) but last time I checked doesn't make any promises at faster than T3. They're being conservative about it, but one thing that really can burn the horsepower is traffic shaping, which you need with some MetroE carriers. -- Thanks; Bill Note that this isn't my regular email account - It's still experimental so far. And Google probably logs and indexes everything you send it.
Re: Router for Metro Ethernet
On Tue, Apr 13, 2010 at 3:06 PM, Holmes,David A wrote: > We use Cisco 3750 L3 switches for Metro Ethernet connectivity. The 3750 > SFPs can run at wire speed up to 1 GiGE. The 3750s are very reliable, > and have good, follow-the-sun technical support in case of problems. > Some caveats: > > 1. only the ME version supports MPLS, in case you want to overlay an > MPLS TE/VPN network on a Metro Ethernet Forum (MEF) ELAN raw Ethernet > service. The MPLS implementation of Cisco 3750 Metro is buggy enough to the point that I recommend it to all my friend's competitors (TM of Randy Bush). On the other side, Cisco ME6500 has MPLS (with some limitations usually accepted with L3 switches) and it works pretty good. It's not cheap, though. Rubens
Re: Router for Metro Ethernet
On Tue, Apr 13, 2010 at 11:06:56AM -0700, Holmes,David A wrote: > We use Cisco 3750 L3 switches for Metro Ethernet connectivity. The 3750 > SFPs can run at wire speed up to 1 GiGE. The 3750s are very reliable, > and have good, follow-the-sun technical support in case of problems. If you do not need MPLS, and do not need the StackWise ports on 3750s, the 3560 is the same switch, minus the stackwise ports, and ~33% cheaper. -- Brandon Ewing(nicot...@warningg.com) pgpH5qUIrhfYD.pgp Description: PGP signature
RE: Router for Metro Ethernet
We use Cisco 3750 L3 switches for Metro Ethernet connectivity. The 3750 SFPs can run at wire speed up to 1 GiGE. The 3750s are very reliable, and have good, follow-the-sun technical support in case of problems. Some caveats: 1. only the ME version supports MPLS, in case you want to overlay an MPLS TE/VPN network on a Metro Ethernet Forum (MEF) ELAN raw Ethernet service. 2. If you are using IP multicast, make sure that the Metro Ethernet provider supports PIM snooping, otherwise (S,G) directed multicast packets will be flooded out all service provider ports that connect to your devices, emulating a 1993-style Ethernet hub. -Original Message- From: Mikael Abrahamsson [mailto:swm...@swm.pp.se] Sent: Monday, April 12, 2010 9:43 PM To: Jeffrey Negro Cc: nanog@nanog.org Subject: Re: Router for Metro Ethernet On Mon, 12 Apr 2010, Jeffrey Negro wrote: > In our case I believe we would be dealing with just static routes and a > lines of ACL. Do you think the routing protocols are your largest resource > usage in your scenario, or is it also just simple routing as well? Get a used 3550 or a new 3400ME or something. Sounds likeyuou'll get by just fine using an L3 switch. -- Mikael Abrahamssonemail: swm...@swm.pp.se
RE: Router for Metro Ethernet
They just added IPv6 over PPP Support in v5 too :) --- Dennis Burgess, CCNA, Mikrotik Certified Trainer, MTCNA, MTCRE, MTCWE, MTCTCE, MTCUME Link Technologies, Inc -- Mikrotik & WISP Support Services Office: 314-735-0270 Website: http://www.linktechs.net LIVE On-Line Mikrotik Training - Author of "Learn RouterOS" -Original Message- From: Owen DeLong [mailto:o...@delong.com] Sent: Monday, April 12, 2010 11:13 PM To: frnk...@iname.com Cc: nanog@nanog.org; 'Bill Stewart' Subject: Re: Router for Metro Ethernet I stand corrected on the Mikrotik... Apparently, while not well documented, they do, indeed support IPv6 and their Wiki even includes tunnel configuration information. Apologies to Mikrotik (and some encouragement to add this to your main-line documentation). Owen On Apr 12, 2010, at 8:56 PM, Frank Bulk wrote: > We run a 3845 at over 300 Mbps and it's less than 50% CPUmost times less > than 30%. No BGP, just OSPF. > > Frank > > -Original Message- > From: Bill Stewart [mailto:nonobvi...@gmail.com] > Sent: Monday, April 12, 2010 1:27 PM > To: nanog@nanog.org > Subject: Re: Router for Metro Ethernet > > On Mon, Apr 12, 2010 at 10:55 AM, Dylan Ebner > wrote: >> However, this router also has 2 100mb connections from local lans that it > is also terminiating. >> For our 100mb metro e connections we use 3845s. The 100 mb service > terminates into NM-GEs, which have a faster throughput than the hwics. > > Be careful using 3845s for 100 Mbps connections or above - Cisco rates > them at 45 Mbps (and 3825 at half of that) but last time I checked > doesn't make any promises at faster than T3. They're being > conservative about it, but one thing that really can burn the > horsepower is traffic shaping, which you need with some MetroE > carriers. > > > -- > > Thanks; Bill > > Note that this isn't my regular email account - It's still experimental so > far. > And Google probably logs and indexes everything you send it. > >
RE: Router for Metro Ethernet
Actually, the latest version 5 adds IP6 over PPP, I don't know where you got that they are not capable of routing IPv6. Just have to install the V6 package. --- Dennis Burgess, CCNA, Mikrotik Certified Trainer, MTCNA, MTCRE, MTCWE, MTCTCE, MTCUME Link Technologies, Inc -- Mikrotik & WISP Support Services Office: 314-735-0270 Website: http://www.linktechs.net LIVE On-Line Mikrotik Training - Author of "Learn RouterOS" -Original Message- From: Owen DeLong [mailto:o...@delong.com] Sent: Monday, April 12, 2010 8:42 PM To: Dennis Burgess Cc: Jeffrey Negro; nanog@nanog.org Subject: Re: Router for Metro Ethernet Yes, but, according to the Mikrotik web site they appear to be obsolete and incapable of routing IPv6. Owen On Apr 12, 2010, at 10:32 AM, Dennis Burgess wrote: > a PowerRouter at http://www.mikrotikrouter.com can handle several > hundred meg without issues. > > --- > Dennis Burgess, CCNA, Mikrotik Certified Trainer, MTCNA, MTCRE, MTCWE, > MTCTCE, MTCUME > Link Technologies, Inc -- Mikrotik & WISP Support Services > Office: 314-735-0270 Website: http://www.linktechs.net > LIVE On-Line Mikrotik Training - Author of "Learn RouterOS" > > > -Original Message- > From: Jeffrey Negro [mailto:jne...@billtrust.com] > Sent: Monday, April 12, 2010 12:29 PM > To: nanog@nanog.org > Subject: Router for Metro Ethernet > > Before I get taken for a ride by salespeople, I figured it would be best > to > ask the experts of Nanog > > My company is currently in talks to bring an ethernet circuit into our > headquarters, initially committing around 40Mbps. The ISP will be > providing > ethernet handoff, but I do not want their managed router offering > (Adtran > 4430) since it is pricey, non-redundant and I'd rather manage it myself. > My > question is about hardware. Can I assume that I can use something like > a > Cisco 2000 series router with two built in fast/gig ethernet ports, > without > a WIC? and since both sides are ethernet would the routing throughput > be > near fast ethernet speed? This is my first dealing with metro ethernet > offerings, and I don't want to assume that the Cisco throughput rates > listed > for T1/ADSL etc. are the same for a metro ethernet as the WAN. > > Any and all suggestions on the hardware would be greatly appreciated. > Thank > you in advance!
Re: Router for Metro Ethernet
On Apr 13, 2010, at 6:44 AM, Jeremy Parr wrote: > On 13 April 2010 00:12, Owen DeLong wrote: >> I stand corrected on the Mikrotik... Apparently, while not well documented, >> they >> do, indeed support IPv6 and their Wiki even includes tunnel configuration >> information. >> >> Apologies to Mikrotik (and some encouragement to add this to your main-line >> documentation). > > For better or worse, the Wiki *IS* their mainline documentation. Fair enough... My point is that http://wiki.mikrotik.com/wiki/Category:Manual#list Contains no mention whatsoever of IPv6. If you go, for example, to the Static IP Addressing page from there, there is also no mention of IPv6. It would be nice if they made IPv6 easier to find in the same places you would find the corresponding IPv4 information. Owen
Re: Router for Metro Ethernet
On 13 April 2010 00:12, Owen DeLong wrote: > I stand corrected on the Mikrotik... Apparently, while not well documented, > they > do, indeed support IPv6 and their Wiki even includes tunnel configuration > information. > > Apologies to Mikrotik (and some encouragement to add this to your main-line > documentation). For better or worse, the Wiki *IS* their mainline documentation.
Re: Router for Metro Ethernet
On Mon, 12 Apr 2010, Jeffrey Negro wrote: In our case I believe we would be dealing with just static routes and a lines of ACL. Do you think the routing protocols are your largest resource usage in your scenario, or is it also just simple routing as well? Get a used 3550 or a new 3400ME or something. Sounds likeyuou'll get by just fine using an L3 switch. -- Mikael Abrahamssonemail: swm...@swm.pp.se
Re: Router for Metro Ethernet
I stand corrected on the Mikrotik... Apparently, while not well documented, they do, indeed support IPv6 and their Wiki even includes tunnel configuration information. Apologies to Mikrotik (and some encouragement to add this to your main-line documentation). Owen On Apr 12, 2010, at 8:56 PM, Frank Bulk wrote: > We run a 3845 at over 300 Mbps and it's less than 50% CPUmost times less > than 30%. No BGP, just OSPF. > > Frank > > -Original Message- > From: Bill Stewart [mailto:nonobvi...@gmail.com] > Sent: Monday, April 12, 2010 1:27 PM > To: nanog@nanog.org > Subject: Re: Router for Metro Ethernet > > On Mon, Apr 12, 2010 at 10:55 AM, Dylan Ebner > wrote: >> However, this router also has 2 100mb connections from local lans that it > is also terminiating. >> For our 100mb metro e connections we use 3845s. The 100 mb service > terminates into NM-GEs, which have a faster throughput than the hwics. > > Be careful using 3845s for 100 Mbps connections or above - Cisco rates > them at 45 Mbps (and 3825 at half of that) but last time I checked > doesn't make any promises at faster than T3. They're being > conservative about it, but one thing that really can burn the > horsepower is traffic shaping, which you need with some MetroE > carriers. > > > -- > > Thanks; Bill > > Note that this isn't my regular email account - It's still experimental so > far. > And Google probably logs and indexes everything you send it. > >
RE: Router for Metro Ethernet
We run a 3845 at over 300 Mbps and it's less than 50% CPUmost times less than 30%. No BGP, just OSPF. Frank -Original Message- From: Bill Stewart [mailto:nonobvi...@gmail.com] Sent: Monday, April 12, 2010 1:27 PM To: nanog@nanog.org Subject: Re: Router for Metro Ethernet On Mon, Apr 12, 2010 at 10:55 AM, Dylan Ebner wrote: > However, this router also has 2 100mb connections from local lans that it is also terminiating. > For our 100mb metro e connections we use 3845s. The 100 mb service terminates into NM-GEs, which have a faster throughput than the hwics. Be careful using 3845s for 100 Mbps connections or above - Cisco rates them at 45 Mbps (and 3825 at half of that) but last time I checked doesn't make any promises at faster than T3. They're being conservative about it, but one thing that really can burn the horsepower is traffic shaping, which you need with some MetroE carriers. -- Thanks; Bill Note that this isn't my regular email account - It's still experimental so far. And Google probably logs and indexes everything you send it.
Re: Router for Metro Ethernet
Yes, but, according to the Mikrotik web site they appear to be obsolete and incapable of routing IPv6. Owen On Apr 12, 2010, at 10:32 AM, Dennis Burgess wrote: > a PowerRouter at http://www.mikrotikrouter.com can handle several > hundred meg without issues. > > --- > Dennis Burgess, CCNA, Mikrotik Certified Trainer, MTCNA, MTCRE, MTCWE, > MTCTCE, MTCUME > Link Technologies, Inc -- Mikrotik & WISP Support Services > Office: 314-735-0270 Website: http://www.linktechs.net > LIVE On-Line Mikrotik Training - Author of "Learn RouterOS" > > > -Original Message- > From: Jeffrey Negro [mailto:jne...@billtrust.com] > Sent: Monday, April 12, 2010 12:29 PM > To: nanog@nanog.org > Subject: Router for Metro Ethernet > > Before I get taken for a ride by salespeople, I figured it would be best > to > ask the experts of Nanog > > My company is currently in talks to bring an ethernet circuit into our > headquarters, initially committing around 40Mbps. The ISP will be > providing > ethernet handoff, but I do not want their managed router offering > (Adtran > 4430) since it is pricey, non-redundant and I'd rather manage it myself. > My > question is about hardware. Can I assume that I can use something like > a > Cisco 2000 series router with two built in fast/gig ethernet ports, > without > a WIC? and since both sides are ethernet would the routing throughput > be > near fast ethernet speed? This is my first dealing with metro ethernet > offerings, and I don't want to assume that the Cisco throughput rates > listed > for T1/ADSL etc. are the same for a metro ethernet as the WAN. > > Any and all suggestions on the hardware would be greatly appreciated. > Thank > you in advance!
Re: Router for Metro Ethernet
http://www.vyatta.com/ ?
Re: Router for Metro Ethernet
On Mon, 12 Apr 2010, Jeffrey Negro wrote: In our case I believe we would be dealing with just static routes and a lines of ACL. Do you think the routing protocols are your largest resource usage in your scenario, or is it also just simple routing as well? If your needs are simple IP routing + simple ACL, but you want line rate ethernet, a layer 3 switch might make sense. -- -- Jon Lewis | I route Senior Network Engineer | therefore you are Atlantic Net| _ http://www.lewis.org/~jlewis/pgp for PGP public key_
RE: Router for Metro Ethernet
Taffic shaping and eigrp eat a lot. inspection is huge as well. I have no ida what the new zone based firewalling will do to a 2800, but after seeing it on an 1800, I know it will not be pretty. static acls should be easy if they are not really large. I wouldn't go out and grab the new CRYMU bogon list, that would kill you. The problem is the router CAN do these things, but if you want any management on the back end you get in trouble. things like NBAR and netflow are incredibly important, but the router cannot handle all these services and the routing protocols and the traffic. If you are not doing nbar or netflow today, that doesn't mean you won't in the near future. I have been finding that getting a router that is too small puts you in a precarious position at times. You can either know where your traffic is going and have a router that drops packets, or you can run blind knowing that all those unmonitored packets are getting through. Dylan Ebner, Network Engineer Consulting Radiologists, Ltd. 1221 Nicollet Mall, Minneapolis, MN 55403 ph. 612.573.2236 fax. 612.573.2250 dylan.eb...@crlmed.com<mailto:dylan.eb...@crlmed.com> www.consultingradiologists.com<http://www.consultingradiologists.com> From: Jeffrey Negro [mailto:jne...@billtrust.com] Sent: Monday, April 12, 2010 1:26 PM To: Dylan Ebner Cc: nanog@nanog.org Subject: Re: Router for Metro Ethernet In our case I believe we would be dealing with just static routes and a lines of ACL. Do you think the routing protocols are your largest resource usage in your scenario, or is it also just simple routing as well? Jeffrey Negro, Network Engineer Billtrust - Improving Your Billing, Improving Your Business www.billtrust.com<http://www.billtrust.com> 609.235.1010 x137 On Mon, Apr 12, 2010 at 1:55 PM, Dylan Ebner mailto:dylan.eb...@crlmed.com>> wrote: We use metro E for our WAN and our internet access delivery. The 2600 series routers do not have enough horsepower to do a 40 Mb connection and eigrp. The 2811 can do 40 mb and eigrp but they start to have difficulty when you add in inspection or large ACLs. We just last week turned a 40mb metroe circuit into a 60mb and the router, a 2811, is now have constant problems. We are replacing it with a 2921. However, this router also has 2 100mb connections from local lans that it is also terminiating. For our 100mb metro e connections we use 3845s. The 100 mb service terminates into NM-GEs, which have a faster throughput than the hwics. This setup works well. On our internet edges we use 2811s with their memory maxed. We have partial BGP routers from 2 isps. One connection is a 30mb and the other is a 25mb. no inspection is done on these but we do have stateless acls running on the inbound. these are running just fine today, but they sit at about 20% cpu all the time. When doing a metro e connection, make sure the router/switch can do traffic shaping. If it can't, you are relying on the provider to shape your outgoing traffic, which of course will happen down the line, adding additional delay during high usage times. You should also look at the new cisco small metro switches. They can traffic shape, do bgp and have more than one interface. one of the annoying thing about metro e(at least with qwest) is they have a tendancy to install new pe switches at your locations when you upgrade your service. this means a new connection from them and unless you have extra fiber or copper ports on your router. So to transition to the new circuit, you need to unplug your existing service first. And that means downtime, which no one likes. Dylan -Original Message- From: Jeffrey Negro [mailto:jne...@billtrust.com<mailto:jne...@billtrust.com>] Sent: Monday, April 12, 2010 12:29 PM To: nanog@nanog.org<mailto:nanog@nanog.org> Subject: Router for Metro Ethernet Before I get taken for a ride by salespeople, I figured it would be best to ask the experts of Nanog My company is currently in talks to bring an ethernet circuit into our headquarters, initially committing around 40Mbps. The ISP will be providing ethernet handoff, but I do not want their managed router offering (Adtran 4430) since it is pricey, non-redundant and I'd rather manage it myself. My question is about hardware. Can I assume that I can use something like a Cisco 2000 series router with two built in fast/gig ethernet ports, without a WIC? and since both sides are ethernet would the routing throughput be near fast ethernet speed? This is my first dealing with metro ethernet offerings, and I don't want to assume that the Cisco throughput rates listed for T1/ADSL etc. are the same for a metro ethernet as the WAN. Any and all suggestions on the hardware would be greatly appreciated. Thank you in advance!
RE: Router for Metro Ethernet
> question is about hardware. Can I assume that I can use something like a > Cisco 2000 series router with two built in fast/gig ethernet ports, > without a WIC? For Cisco, check out the ME3400 series of switches. Be sure to look at the IOS licensing carefully to see if the features you need are there. ~JasonG smime.p7s Description: S/MIME cryptographic signature
Re: Router for Metro Ethernet
Jeffrey Negro wrote: In our case I believe we would be dealing with just static routes and a lines of ACL. In that case a linux/FreeBSD router would work great. - Kevin
Re: Router for Metro Ethernet
On Mon, Apr 12, 2010 at 10:55 AM, Dylan Ebner wrote: > However, this router also has 2 100mb connections from local lans that it is > also terminiating. > For our 100mb metro e connections we use 3845s. The 100 mb service terminates > into NM-GEs, which have a faster throughput than the hwics. Be careful using 3845s for 100 Mbps connections or above - Cisco rates them at 45 Mbps (and 3825 at half of that) but last time I checked doesn't make any promises at faster than T3. They're being conservative about it, but one thing that really can burn the horsepower is traffic shaping, which you need with some MetroE carriers. -- Thanks; Bill Note that this isn't my regular email account - It's still experimental so far. And Google probably logs and indexes everything you send it.
Re: Router for Metro Ethernet
In our case I believe we would be dealing with just static routes and a lines of ACL. Do you think the routing protocols are your largest resource usage in your scenario, or is it also just simple routing as well? Jeffrey Negro, Network Engineer Billtrust - Improving Your Billing, Improving Your Business www.billtrust.com 609.235.1010 x137 On Mon, Apr 12, 2010 at 1:55 PM, Dylan Ebner wrote: > We use metro E for our WAN and our internet access delivery. The 2600 > series routers do not have enough horsepower to do a 40 Mb connection and > eigrp. The 2811 can do 40 mb and eigrp but they start to have difficulty > when you add in inspection or large ACLs. We just last week turned a 40mb > metroe circuit into a 60mb and the router, a 2811, is now have constant > problems. We are replacing it with a 2921. However, this router also has 2 > 100mb connections from local lans that it is also terminiating. For our > 100mb metro e connections we use 3845s. The 100 mb service terminates into > NM-GEs, which have a faster throughput than the hwics. This setup works > well. > On our internet edges we use 2811s with their memory maxed. We have partial > BGP routers from 2 isps. One connection is a 30mb and the other is a 25mb. > no inspection is done on these but we do have stateless acls running on the > inbound. these are running just fine today, but they sit at about 20% cpu > all the time. > When doing a metro e connection, make sure the router/switch can do traffic > shaping. If it can't, you are relying on the provider to shape your outgoing > traffic, which of course will happen down the line, adding additional delay > during high usage times. > > You should also look at the new cisco small metro switches. They can > traffic shape, do bgp and have more than one interface. one of the annoying > thing about metro e(at least with qwest) is they have a tendancy to install > new pe switches at your locations when you upgrade your service. this means > a new connection from them and unless you have extra fiber or copper ports > on your router. So to transition to the new circuit, you need to unplug your > existing service first. And that means downtime, which no one likes. > > > > Dylan > > > -Original Message- > From: Jeffrey Negro [mailto:jne...@billtrust.com] > Sent: Monday, April 12, 2010 12:29 PM > To: nanog@nanog.org > Subject: Router for Metro Ethernet > > Before I get taken for a ride by salespeople, I figured it would be best to > ask the experts of Nanog > > My company is currently in talks to bring an ethernet circuit into our > headquarters, initially committing around 40Mbps. The ISP will be > providing > ethernet handoff, but I do not want their managed router offering (Adtran > 4430) since it is pricey, non-redundant and I'd rather manage it myself. > My > question is about hardware. Can I assume that I can use something like a > Cisco 2000 series router with two built in fast/gig ethernet ports, without > a WIC? and since both sides are ethernet would the routing throughput be > near fast ethernet speed? This is my first dealing with metro ethernet > offerings, and I don't want to assume that the Cisco throughput rates > listed > for T1/ADSL etc. are the same for a metro ethernet as the WAN. > > Any and all suggestions on the hardware would be greatly appreciated. > Thank > you in advance! >
Re: Router for Metro Ethernet
On Mon, Apr 12, 2010 at 05:55:29PM +, Dylan Ebner wrote: > also terminiating. For our 100mb metro e connections we use > 3845s. The 100 mb service terminates into NM-GEs, which have a FWIW, we made the mistake of going for 3825s on a 50Mb/s policed GigE. Running GRE/IPSec (AIM-VPN'd) and QoS, the boxes go to 100% CPU in the vicinity of 40Mb/s. -cjp
RE: Router for Metro Ethernet
We use metro E for our WAN and our internet access delivery. The 2600 series routers do not have enough horsepower to do a 40 Mb connection and eigrp. The 2811 can do 40 mb and eigrp but they start to have difficulty when you add in inspection or large ACLs. We just last week turned a 40mb metroe circuit into a 60mb and the router, a 2811, is now have constant problems. We are replacing it with a 2921. However, this router also has 2 100mb connections from local lans that it is also terminiating. For our 100mb metro e connections we use 3845s. The 100 mb service terminates into NM-GEs, which have a faster throughput than the hwics. This setup works well. On our internet edges we use 2811s with their memory maxed. We have partial BGP routers from 2 isps. One connection is a 30mb and the other is a 25mb. no inspection is done on these but we do have stateless acls running on the inbound. these are running just fine today, but they sit at about 20% cpu all the time. When doing a metro e connection, make sure the router/switch can do traffic shaping. If it can't, you are relying on the provider to shape your outgoing traffic, which of course will happen down the line, adding additional delay during high usage times. You should also look at the new cisco small metro switches. They can traffic shape, do bgp and have more than one interface. one of the annoying thing about metro e(at least with qwest) is they have a tendancy to install new pe switches at your locations when you upgrade your service. this means a new connection from them and unless you have extra fiber or copper ports on your router. So to transition to the new circuit, you need to unplug your existing service first. And that means downtime, which no one likes. Dylan -Original Message- From: Jeffrey Negro [mailto:jne...@billtrust.com] Sent: Monday, April 12, 2010 12:29 PM To: nanog@nanog.org Subject: Router for Metro Ethernet Before I get taken for a ride by salespeople, I figured it would be best to ask the experts of Nanog My company is currently in talks to bring an ethernet circuit into our headquarters, initially committing around 40Mbps. The ISP will be providing ethernet handoff, but I do not want their managed router offering (Adtran 4430) since it is pricey, non-redundant and I'd rather manage it myself. My question is about hardware. Can I assume that I can use something like a Cisco 2000 series router with two built in fast/gig ethernet ports, without a WIC? and since both sides are ethernet would the routing throughput be near fast ethernet speed? This is my first dealing with metro ethernet offerings, and I don't want to assume that the Cisco throughput rates listed for T1/ADSL etc. are the same for a metro ethernet as the WAN. Any and all suggestions on the hardware would be greatly appreciated. Thank you in advance!
RE: Router for Metro Ethernet
Jeffrey, We have deployed metro Ethernet in our network... some things to consider: 1) Is metro Ethernet available end to end, if not will you utilize MPLS? 2) We've deployed Juniper EX3200s, Cisco has great solutions as well... for example 2800 series router. We use Cisco as well. 3) Metro Ethernet is available in increments up to 1G, aka 1000Mbs, so I would explore cost solutions for scalability and future proofing. 4) Benchmark tests revealed near wire speed... however, this is contingent upon region, carrier, provider, locale, etc. 5) It's quick. We use it and it works! Hope this sheds some light. ~Jay Murphy IP Network Specialist NM State Government IT Services Division PSB – IP Network Management Center Santa Fé, New México 87505 "We move the information that moves your world." “Good engineering demands that we understand what we’re doing and why, keep an open mind, and learn from experience.” “Engineering is about finding the sweet spot between what's solvable and what isn't." Radia Perlman Please consider the environment before printing e-mail -Original Message- From: Jeffrey Negro [mailto:jne...@billtrust.com] Sent: Monday, April 12, 2010 11:29 AM To: nanog@nanog.org Subject: Router for Metro Ethernet Before I get taken for a ride by salespeople, I figured it would be best to ask the experts of Nanog My company is currently in talks to bring an ethernet circuit into our headquarters, initially committing around 40Mbps. The ISP will be providing ethernet handoff, but I do not want their managed router offering (Adtran 4430) since it is pricey, non-redundant and I'd rather manage it myself. My question is about hardware. Can I assume that I can use something like a Cisco 2000 series router with two built in fast/gig ethernet ports, without a WIC? and since both sides are ethernet would the routing throughput be near fast ethernet speed? This is my first dealing with metro ethernet offerings, and I don't want to assume that the Cisco throughput rates listed for T1/ADSL etc. are the same for a metro ethernet as the WAN. Any and all suggestions on the hardware would be greatly appreciated. Thank you in advance! Confidentiality Notice: This e-mail, including all attachments is for the sole use of the intended recipient(s) and may contain confidential and privileged information. Any unauthorized review, use, disclosure or distribution is prohibited unless specifically provided under the New Mexico Inspection of Public Records Act. If you are not the intended recipient, please contact the sender and destroy all copies of this message. -- This email has been scanned by the Sybari - Antigen Email System.
RE: Router for Metro Ethernet
a PowerRouter at http://www.mikrotikrouter.com can handle several hundred meg without issues. --- Dennis Burgess, CCNA, Mikrotik Certified Trainer, MTCNA, MTCRE, MTCWE, MTCTCE, MTCUME Link Technologies, Inc -- Mikrotik & WISP Support Services Office: 314-735-0270 Website: http://www.linktechs.net LIVE On-Line Mikrotik Training - Author of "Learn RouterOS" -Original Message- From: Jeffrey Negro [mailto:jne...@billtrust.com] Sent: Monday, April 12, 2010 12:29 PM To: nanog@nanog.org Subject: Router for Metro Ethernet Before I get taken for a ride by salespeople, I figured it would be best to ask the experts of Nanog My company is currently in talks to bring an ethernet circuit into our headquarters, initially committing around 40Mbps. The ISP will be providing ethernet handoff, but I do not want their managed router offering (Adtran 4430) since it is pricey, non-redundant and I'd rather manage it myself. My question is about hardware. Can I assume that I can use something like a Cisco 2000 series router with two built in fast/gig ethernet ports, without a WIC? and since both sides are ethernet would the routing throughput be near fast ethernet speed? This is my first dealing with metro ethernet offerings, and I don't want to assume that the Cisco throughput rates listed for T1/ADSL etc. are the same for a metro ethernet as the WAN. Any and all suggestions on the hardware would be greatly appreciated. Thank you in advance!
