[101946] in North American Network Operators' Group
RE: Cost per prefix [was: request for help w/ ATT and terminology]
daemon@ATHENA.MIT.EDU (Neil J. McRae)
Mon Jan 21 03:24:04 2008
From: "Neil J. McRae" <neil@domino.org>
Date: Mon, 21 Jan 2008 07:58:46 +0000
To: Joe Abley <jabley@ca.afilias.info>,
William Herrin <herrin-nanog@dirtside.com>
CC: "Patrick W. Gilmore" <patrick@ianai.net>, <nanog@merit.edu>
Errors-To: owner-nanog@merit.edu
Joe
How many E1 customers can I plug into that device? You can take a cross sec=
tion on this issue at various points.
Think of the huge (sub RSP8) 7500 estates still in production, GSR Engine <=
5, 7609 <RSP720 and Flexwan1 and I think the early Juniper boxes - that can=
cope with todays size of routing table. The cost per prefix on those devic=
es is very expensive indeed as the step upgrade driver for those devices is=
now the size o the table. We are all paying for it margin reduction...
Regards,
Neil
-----Original Message-----
From: Joe Abley <jabley@ca.afilias.info>
Sent: 21 January 2008 00:15
To: William Herrin <herrin-nanog@dirtside.com>
Cc: Patrick W. Gilmore <patrick@ianai.net>; nanog@merit.edu
Subject: Re: Cost per prefix [was: request for help w/ ATT and terminology]
A new cisco 2851 can be found for under $10k and can take a gig of =20
RAM. If your goal is to have fine-grained routing data, and not to =20
carry gigs of traffic, that particular router is perfectly adequate.
If you're prepared to consider second-hand equipment (which seems =20
fair, since it's not as though the real Internet has no eBay VXRs in =20
it) you could get better performance, or lower cost, depending on =20
which way you wanted to turn the dial.
Sometimes it's important to appreciate that the network edge is bigger =20
than the network core. Just because this kind of equipment wouldn't =20
come close to cutting it in a carrier network doesn't mean that they =20
aren't perfectly appropriate for a large proportion of deployed =20
routers which take a full table.
Joe
