On Jun 1, 2013, at 4:35 AM, Matthew Crocker matt...@corp.crocker.com wrote:
I'm looking for some advise on a C or J router.
Requirements:
200 mbps of throughput (small packets)
4 GigE interfaces (copper or SFP)
ip verify unicast reverse-path support in hardware.
BGP4 with a decent
On 6/1/13 6:13 AM, Lukasz Bromirski wrote:
On Jun 1, 2013, at 4:35 AM, Matthew Crocker matt...@corp.crocker.com wrote:
I'm looking for some advise on a C or J router.
Requirements:
200 mbps of throughput (small packets)
4 GigE interfaces (copper or SFP)
ip verify unicast reverse-path
I'm looking for some advise on a C or J router.
Requirements:
200 mbps of throughput (small packets)
4 GigE interfaces (copper or SFP)
ip verify unicast reverse-path support in hardware.
BGP4 with a decent CPU to handle full tables.
My plan is to peer BGP with my border routers and pull in
:* donderdag 17 februari 2011 8:40
*To:* Rens
*Cc:* Josh Baird; cisco-nsp@puck.nether.net
*Subject:* Re: [c-nsp] Router recommendation for small ISP
Hi Rens,
Actually there is no statement saying that but I believe this should be the
case soon, Cisco ASR1001 is a totally fixed device
Anyone know the list price difference between the 1000 and 1002-f version?
-Original Message-
From: E. Versaevel [mailto:e...@infopact.nl]
Sent: donderdag 17 februari 2011 9:05
To: Rens
Cc: 'Mounir Mohamed'; cisco-nsp@puck.nether.net
Subject: Re: [c-nsp] Router recommendation for small
no?
From: mounir.moha...@gmail.com [mailto:mounir.moha...@gmail.com] On Behalf
Of Mounir Mohamed
Sent: donderdag 17 februari 2011 8:40
To: Rens
Cc: Josh Baird; cisco-nsp@puck.nether.net
Subject: Re: [c-nsp] Router recommendation for small ISP
Hi Rens,
Actually there is no statement
Mounir Mohamed mounirmoha...@gmail.com writes:
For investment protection I recommend Cisco ASR1001, It is an ISP class gear
that allows you to add services as you grow without performance degradation.
Check it out.
http://www.cisco.com/en/US/products/ps10878/index.html
I know I am repeating
It depends on the number of BGP sessions you gone use, multiple BGP sessions
with full internet routing table (340K right now) will be stored smoothly on
an RP with 4G or 8G memory, but after completing the BGP decision process it
will end up with less than 500k on the forwarding path (ESP5 with
On 17/02/2011 09:11, Mounir Mohamed wrote:
It depends on the number of BGP sessions you gone use, multiple BGP sessions
with full internet routing table (340K right now) will be stored smoothly on
an RP with 4G or 8G memory, but after completing the BGP decision process it
will end up with less
From a different angle, IPv4 depletion will defuse the increasing of IPv4
routes on the internet.
On Thu, Feb 17, 2011 at 11:30 AM, Nick Hilliard n...@foobar.org wrote:
On 17/02/2011 09:11, Mounir Mohamed wrote:
It depends on the number of BGP sessions you gone use, multiple BGP
sessions
On 17/02/2011 10:03, Mounir Mohamed wrote:
From a different angle, IPv4 depletion will defuse the increasing of IPv4
routes on the internet.
That may happen. Alternatively, as people become desperate about acquiring
new IPv4 address space in order to grow their businesses, they will buy /
On Feb 17, 2011, at 5:03 PM, Mounir Mohamed wrote:
From a different angle, IPv4 depletion will defuse the increasing of IPv4
routes on the internet.
Not necessarily.
---
Roland Dobbins rdobb...@arbor.net //
On Thu, Feb 17, 2011 at 12:12 PM, Nick Hilliard n...@foobar.org wrote:
On 17/02/2011 10:03, Mounir Mohamed wrote:
From a different angle, IPv4 depletion will defuse the increasing of IPv4
routes on the internet.
That may happen. Alternatively, as people become desperate about acquiring
Thanks for the advice, everyone. Unfortunately, I am on a tight budget for
this particular project which is why I was looking at cheaper/smaller
solutions such as a 3845 or perhaps a 7206VXR with a NPE-G1. While these
are older products, they should be be able to satisfy my requirements for
the
On 17/02/2011 14:39, Josh Baird wrote:
While these are older products, they should be be able to satisfy my
requirements for
the short term, right? That is, they can handle two full BGP feeds.
Hi Josh,
A 7206VXR with a NPE-G1 and 1GB RAM kit will handle 2 full BGP feeds
comfortably.
It is
Hi,
I'm looking for a router recommendation for a very small ISP. The
router will terminate two ethernet circuits from two upstream ISPs - a
total of around 100mbit between the two ISPs. The router will have a
BGP session with each provider and should be able to handle full
tables from both.
For investment protection I recommend Cisco ASR1001, It is an ISP class gear
that allows you to add services as you grow without performance degradation.
Check it out.
http://www.cisco.com/en/US/products/ps10878/index.html
On Thu, Feb 17, 2011 at 1:31 AM, Josh Baird joshba...@gmail.com wrote:
This ASR1001 makes the 1002-fixed a bit useless no?
-Original Message-
From: cisco-nsp-boun...@puck.nether.net
[mailto:cisco-nsp-boun...@puck.nether.net] On Behalf Of Mounir Mohamed
Sent: donderdag 17 februari 2011 1:10
To: Josh Baird
Cc: cisco-nsp@puck.nether.net
Subject: Re: [c-nsp
Of Mounir Mohamed
Sent: donderdag 17 februari 2011 1:10
To: Josh Baird
Cc: cisco-nsp@puck.nether.net
Subject: Re: [c-nsp] Router recommendation for small ISP
For investment protection I recommend Cisco ASR1001, It is an ISP class
gear
that allows you to add services as you grow without performance
] On Behalf Of Mounir Mohamed
Sent: donderdag 17 februari 2011 1:10
To: Josh Baird
Cc: cisco-nsp@puck.nether.net
Subject: Re: [c-nsp] Router recommendation for small ISP
For investment protection I recommend Cisco ASR1001, It is an ISP class gear
that allows you to add services as you grow without
Hi,
On Tue, Jan 19, 2010 at 11:30:32AM -0800, Hector Herrera wrote:
I'm currently using a 3550-12t for the task, with the only drawback
that the cpu hits 99% load with a 5000 packets per sec./40Mbps
combined throughput on the load-balanced links. The two 100Mbps
uplinks never reach more than
Hello,
I'm looking for a router that can:
- handle load-balancing on two 100Mbps links with minimal cpu impact
- must have at least 4 ports, at least 2 of which should be GigE and
the other two must support FE or GigE
- BGP with 25,000 routes
My budget is small (under $2,000) so I'm probably
If you reduce the number of BGP routes to 12000 your 3550-12T will handle two
GigE uplinks with no CPU impact. Just use the correct SDM template.
On Jan 19, 2010, at 10:30 PM, Hector Herrera wrote:
Hello,
I'm looking for a router that can:
- handle load-balancing on two 100Mbps links
Message: 2
Date: Tue, 19 Jan 2010 11:30:32 -0800
From: Hector Herrera mail...@pobox.com
To: cisco-nsp@puck.nether.net
Subject: [c-nsp] Router recommendation for load balancing setup
Message-ID:
c7ef7cf71001191130j57e02c75o4af5b004f4d29...@mail.gmail.com
Content-Type: text/plain
On Jan 19, 2010, at 3:48 PM, Cyrill Malevanov wrote:
If you reduce the number of BGP routes to 12000 your 3550-12T will handle two
GigE uplinks with no CPU impact. Just use the correct SDM template.
Seconded. I use 3550s in my network. 24k is the maximum unicast route table
limit that
Steve Bertrand wrote:
Hi everyone,
We run a small ISP, with approximately 2500 dialup clients, 50 SDSL
clients, and with about 300 domain hosting clients.
We currently have a Cisco 2651 router that is underpowered for our
environment.
(C2600-ADVENTERPRISEK9-M) -- Cisco 2651XM (MPC860P)
26 matches
Mail list logo
