[138491] in North American Network Operators' Group
Re: Internet Edge Router replacement - IPv6 route table size
daemon@ATHENA.MIT.EDU (Owen DeLong)
Tue Mar 8 19:55:01 2011
From: Owen DeLong <owen@delong.com>
In-Reply-To: <D5E85FC66B6AFB4683BFC1476DDB09F20224293F21@rex.w2k.ci.hillsboro.or.us>
Date: Tue, 8 Mar 2011 16:51:46 -0800
To: Chris Enger <chrise@ci.hillsboro.or.us>
Cc: "'nanog@nanog.org'" <nanog@nanog.org>
Errors-To: nanog-bounces+nanog.discuss=bloom-picayune.mit.edu@nanog.org
I've been very happy with the Juniper J4350/6350 series.
Owen
On Mar 8, 2011, at 4:15 PM, Chris Enger wrote:
> Greetings,
>=20
> I am researching possible replacements for our Internet edge =
routers, and wanted to see what people could recommend for a smaller =
chassis or fixed router that can handle current IPv4 routes and =
transition into IPv6. Currently we have Brocade NetIron 4802s pulling =
full IPv4 routes plus a default route. I've looked at Extreme, Brocade, =
Cisco, and a few others. Most range from 256k - 500k IPv4 and 4k - 16k =
IPv6 routes when CAM space is allocated for both. The only exception =
I've found so far is the Cisco ASR 1002, which can do 125k v6 along with =
500k v4 routes at once. I'm curious if any other vendors have =
comparable products.
>=20
> My concern is trying to find a router (within our budget) that has =
room for growth in the IPv6 routing space. When compared to the live =
table sizes that the CIDR report and routeviews show, some can't handle =
current routing tables, let alone years of growth. BGP tweaks may keep =
us going but I can't see how 16k or fewer IPv6 routes on a router is =
going to be viable a few years from now.
>=20
> Thank you,
> Chris Enger
