[115888] in North American Network Operators' Group
RE: BGP Growth projections
daemon@ATHENA.MIT.EDU (Ivan Pepelnjak)
Sat Jul 11 03:28:10 2009
From: "Ivan Pepelnjak" <ip@ioshints.info>
To: "'Mark Radabaugh'" <mark@amplex.net>,
"'nanog list'" <nanog@merit.edu>
Date: Sat, 11 Jul 2009 09:27:08 +0200
In-Reply-To: <4A576F70.9010003@amplex.net>
Errors-To: nanog-bounces+nanog.discuss=bloom-picayune.mit.edu@nanog.org
Let me be the devil's advocate: why would you need full Internet routing?
Taking reasonably sized neighborhoods of your upstreams (AS paths up to X AS
numbers) plus a default to your best upstream might do the trick.
Ivan
http://www.ioshints.info/about
http://blog.ioshints.info/
> -----Original Message-----
> From: Mark Radabaugh [mailto:mark@amplex.net]
> Sent: Friday, July 10, 2009 6:42 PM
> To: nanog list
> Subject: BGP Growth projections
>
> I'm looking for new core routers for a small ISP and having a
> hard time
> finding something appropriate and reasonably priced. We don't have
> huge traffic levels (<1Gb) and are mostly running Ethernet
> interfaces to
> upstreams rather than legacy interfaces (when did OC3 become
> legacy?).
>
> Lot's of choices for routers that can handle the existing BGP
> tables - but not so much in small platforms (1-10Gb traffic)
> if you assume that
> IPv6 is going to explode the routing table in the next 5
> years. The
> manufacturers still seem to think low traffic routers don't
> need much memory or CPU.
>
> What projections are you using regarding the default free
> zone over the next 5 years when picking new hardware?
>
> --
>
> Mark Radabaugh
> Amplex
> 419.837.5015 x21
> mark@amplex.net
>
>
>
>
