[119153] in North American Network Operators' Group
Re: Failover how much complexity will it add?
daemon@ATHENA.MIT.EDU (adel@baklawasecrets.com)
Sun Nov 8 18:37:12 2009
To: <nanog@nanog.org>
Date: Sun, 08 Nov 2009 23:36:31 +0000
From: adel@baklawasecrets.com
Reply-To: adel@baklawasecrets.com
Errors-To: nanog-bounces+nanog.discuss=bloom-picayune.mit.edu@nanog.org
Basically the organisation that I'm working for will not have the skills in=
house to support a linux or bsd box. They will have trouble
with supporting the BGP configuration, however I don't think they will be h=
appy with me if I leave them with a linux box when they
don't have linux/unix resource internally. At least with a Cisco or Junipe=
r they are familiar with IOS and it won't be too foreign to them.
On Sun 11:30 PM , "Renato Frederick" <frederick@dahype.org> wrote:
> There are any problems with quagga+BSD/Linux that you know or something=
=20
> like that?
>=20
> Or in your scenario a "cisco/juniper box" is a requirement?
>=20
> I'm asking this because I'm always running BGP with upstreams providers=
=20
> using quagga on BSD and everything is fine until now.
>=20
> --------------------------------------------------
> From:=20
> Sent: Sunday, November 08, 2009 8:39 PM
> To:=20
> Subject: Re: Failover how much complexity will it add?
>=20
> >
> > So if my requirements are as follows:
> >
> > - BGP router capable of holding full Internet routing table. (whether I
>=20
> > 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.=
=20
> > Probably looking at Cisco or Juniper products, but interested
> > in any other alternatives people suggest. I realise this is quite a
> broad=20
> > 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=
=20
> > know.
> >
> > Thanks
> >
> > Adel
>=20
>=20
>=20
