[113268] in North American Network Operators' Group
Re: options for full routing table in 1 year?
daemon@ATHENA.MIT.EDU (Hector Herrera)
Thu Apr 9 13:14:58 2009
In-Reply-To: <935ead450904090753r78c667e3mbbbb90392c7969a4@mail.gmail.com>
Date: Thu, 9 Apr 2009 10:08:15 -0700
From: Hector Herrera <hectorherrera@gmail.com>
To: Jeffrey Ollie <jeff@ocjtech.us>
Cc: NANOG list <nanog@merit.edu>
Errors-To: nanog-bounces+nanog.discuss=bloom-picayune.mit.edu@nanog.org
On Thu, Apr 9, 2009 at 7:53 AM, Jeffrey Ollie <jeff@ocjtech.us> wrote:
> On Wed, Apr 8, 2009 at 8:33 PM, Jo Rhett <jrhett@netconsonance.com> wrote=
:
>> I was chatting with someone the other day and we were trying to build a
>> complete list of all units which can handle full routing tables 1 year f=
rom
>> now, assuming current 4k/month growth (nevermind de-aggregation)
>
> What about Cisco's ASR series? =A0We're going to be turning up a
> multihomed connection with two full BGP views and I think our reseller
> is going to be recommending ASR series routers...
>
I believe the Cisco ASR series can handle 1M IPv4 or 250K IPv6 in
their entry level unit (ASR1002), the more advanced units can be
upgraded to handle 4M IPv4 or 2M IPv6. It does appear to be a "shared
table" design, so you would have to chose one or the other.
--=20
Hector Herrera
President
Pier Programming Services Ltd.
