[119149] in North American Network Operators' Group
Re: Failover how much complexity will it add?
daemon@ATHENA.MIT.EDU (adel@baklawasecrets.com)
Sun Nov 8 17:42:24 2009
To: <nanog@nanog.org>
Date: Sun, 08 Nov 2009 22:39:50 +0000
From: adel@baklawasecrets.com
Reply-To: adel@baklawasecrets.com
Errors-To: nanog-bounces+nanog.discuss=bloom-picayune.mit.edu@nanog.org
So if my requirements are as follows:
- BGP router capable of holding full Internet routing table. (whether I go=
for partial or full, I think I want something with full capability).
- Capable of pushing 100meg plus of mixed traffic.
What are my options? I want to exclude openbsd, or linux with quagga. Pro=
bably looking at Cisco or Juniper products, but interested
in any other alternatives people suggest. I realise this is quite a broad =
question, but hoping this will provide a starting point. Oh and
if I have missed any specs I should have included above, please let me know=
.
Thanks
Adel
On Sun 10:18 PM , Seth Mattinen <sethm@rollernet.us> wrote:
> adel@baklawasecrets.com wrote:
> > I think partial routes makes perfect sense, makes sense that traffic
> for customers who are connected to each of my upstreams should go out of
> > the correct BGP link as long as they are up! Now I need to start
> thinking of BGP router choices, sure I have a plethora of choices :-(
> >=20
>=20
> Personally I'll always go for full routes if the router has enough
> memory (software based) or TCAM space (hardware based). Cheaper to do on
> software platforms though. An entry level Cisco 2811 can take full
> tables from multiple upstreams with 786MB RAM or even 512. It won't push
> 100 meg of mixed traffic though.
>=20
> ~Seth
>=20
>=20
>=20
