On Mar 10, 2011, at 1:01 PM, Blake Hudson wrote:
>
>> My concern is trying to find a router (within our budget) that has room for
>> growth in the IPv6 routing space. When compared to the live table sizes
>> that the CIDR report and routeviews show, some can't handle current routing
>> table
> My concern is trying to find a router (within our budget) that has room for
> growth in the IPv6 routing space. When compared to the live table sizes that
> the CIDR report and routeviews show, some can't handle current routing
> tables, let alone years of growth. BGP tweaks may keep us goi
On Wed, Mar 9, 2011 at 9:11 PM, Chris Woodfield wrote:
> I think this is the point where I get a shovel, a bullwhip and head over to
> the horse graveyard that is CAM optimization...
The classic problem with any sort of FIB optimization is that you
can't optimize every figure on the spec sheet a
:09 PM
> To: 'nanog@nanog.org'
> Cc: Chris Enger
> Subject: Re: Internet Edge Router replacement - IPv6 route table size
> considerations
>
> On 09/03/11 12:08, Julien Goodwin wrote:
>> On 09/03/11 11:57, Chris Enger wrote:
>>> I did look at a Juniper J6350,
Enger
Cc: nanog@nanog.org
Subject: Re: Internet Edge Router replacement - IPv6 route table size
considerations
Chris,
With address exhaustion and deaggregation, the table is only going to
get bigger so choosing anything now that can only handle anything
south of 1M routes is not a wise investment
Chris,
With address exhaustion and deaggregation, the table is only going to
get bigger so choosing anything now that can only handle anything
south of 1M routes is not a wise investment.
Several posters have recommended ASR1002 and MX80. I use both of these
platforms in my environment and have b
odwin [mailto:na...@studio442.com.au]
Sent: Tuesday, March 08, 2011 5:09 PM
To: 'nanog@nanog.org'
Cc: Chris Enger
Subject: Re: Internet Edge Router replacement - IPv6 route table size
considerations
On 09/03/11 12:08, Julien Goodwin wrote:
> On 09/03/11 11:57, Chris Enger wrote:
>>
On 09/03/11 12:08, Julien Goodwin wrote:
> On 09/03/11 11:57, Chris Enger wrote:
>> I did look at a Juniper J6350, and the documentation states it can handle
>> 400k routes with 1GB of memory, or 1 million with 2GB. However it doesn’t
>> spell out how that is divvyed up between the two based on
On 09/03/11 11:57, Chris Enger wrote:
> I did look at a Juniper J6350, and the documentation states it can handle
> 400k routes with 1GB of memory, or 1 million with 2GB. However it doesn’t
> spell out how that is divvyed up between the two based on a profile setting
> or some other mechanism.
...@gmail.com]
Sent: Tuesday, March 08, 2011 4:33 PM
To: Chris Enger; 'nanog@nanog.org'
Subject: Re: Internet Edge Router replacement - IPv6 route table size
considerations
have you looked into juniper networks?
- Reply message -
From: "Chris Enger"
Date: Tue, Mar 8,
I've been very happy with the Juniper J4350/6350 series.
Owen
On Mar 8, 2011, at 4:15 PM, Chris Enger wrote:
> Greetings,
>
>I am researching possible replacements for our Internet edge routers, and
> wanted to see what people could recommend for a smaller chassis or fixed
> router that c
have you looked into juniper networks?
- Reply message -
From: "Chris Enger"
Date: Tue, Mar 8, 2011 5:15 pm
Subject: Internet Edge Router replacement - IPv6 route table size considerations
To: "'nanog@nanog.org'"
Greetings,
I am researching possible
Greetings,
I am researching possible replacements for our Internet edge routers, and
wanted to see what people could recommend for a smaller chassis or fixed router
that can handle current IPv4 routes and transition into IPv6. Currently we
have Brocade NetIron 4802s pulling full IPv4 route
13 matches
Mail list logo
