[140270] in North American Network Operators' Group
Re: Current recommendations for 2 x full bgp feed
daemon@ATHENA.MIT.EDU (Support)
Sat May 7 12:58:01 2011
From: "Support" <support@comgw.co.uk>
To: nanog@nanog.org
Date: Sat, 07 May 2011 17:57:05 +0100
In-reply-to: <Pine.LNX.4.61.1105071054350.4318@soloth.lewis.org>
Errors-To: nanog-bounces+nanog.discuss=bloom-picayune.mit.edu@nanog.org
On 7 May 2011 at 11:02, Jon Lewis wrote:
> On Sat, 7 May 2011, Support wrote:
>
> > Can anyone give me their recommendation for current hardware to take 2 x
> > full BGP feeds over 1Gb/s ports with a third Gb port for the local network?
> >
> > I did this about 6/7 years ago with a Cisco 7200VXR NPE300 256MB RAM
> > but I'm guessing things have moved on???
>
> The NPE300 won't handle full routes anymore or the volume of traffic
> you're likely to want to move with multiple gig ports.
>
> You mentioned 3 1gb ports, but not how much traffic you expect to be
> moving (or what sorts of features you need). A 7200VXR with NPEG1 or G2
> might do. A 6506 with Sup720-3bxl (or better) and a 6408A or 6516-GE-TX
> (depending on your cabling needs) would easily do it.
We've guestimated around 150Mb/s total transit to start, probably moving
up to 300Mb/s as a maximum, so nothing too drastic. Minimum is 3 x 1Gb/s
ports, but will probably want to expand that later and add another two gig
ports.
Feature wise, BGP (and later iBGP with OSPF) is the most important as it's
a border router. The ability to put access lists in to block unwanted traffic,
IPv6 capability and trunked VLANs are all desireable.
Thanks to all who have responded so far.
Chris
