[151634] in North American Network Operators' Group
Re: Force10 E Series at the edge?
daemon@ATHENA.MIT.EDU (Jo Rhett)
Tue Mar 27 18:01:05 2012
From: Jo Rhett <jrhett@netconsonance.com>
In-Reply-To: <12EFAA890B74E14782EFB259E5A63ABC78E5A7B0@GEMINI2.psi.corp>
Date: Tue, 27 Mar 2012 15:00:22 -0700
To: "Roberts, Brent" <Brent.Roberts@progressive-solutions.com>
Cc: NANOG <nanog@nanog.org>
Errors-To: nanog-bounces+nanog.discuss=bloom-picayune.mit.edu@nanog.org
I was very happy with the E300 as a data center core switch handling =
multiple full feeds (around 15) with about 10x the traffic you are =
talking about. The only problem I had was that Force10 didn't have a =
useful (basically forklift) upgrade to get more IPv4 prefixes, and the =
more I talked to them and the more I showed them the graphs =
demonstrating what we'd need for prefix space assuming even the most =
conservative assumptions at depletion, the more I realized they really =
Did Not Get It. In fact, their brand new architecture recently =
announced had only 500k prefixes allowed, at a time that the Juniper MX =
platform handled 2million easily.
So I would be fine using Force10 again, given the following changes:
1. Large limits on IP prefixes allowed
2. Reallocation of useless memory from stupid things like MAC =
tables to prefixes (data centers have very few MACs, very many prefixes)
3. Command line logging=20
The units worked great at failover, never had any problems gracefully =
failing over from one RP to another, but if you have to cold boot them =
for any reason it takes like 5 minutes :(
On Mar 27, 2012, at 2:21 PM, Roberts, Brent wrote:
> Is anyone running an E300 Series Chassis at the internet edge with =
multiple Full BGP feeds? 95th percent would be about 300 meg of traffic. =
BGP session count would be between 2 and 4 Peers.
> 6k internal Prefix count as it stands right now. Alternative are =
welcome. Thought about the ASR1006 but I need some local switching as =
well.
>=20
> Full requirements include
> Full internet Peering over GigE Links.
> Fully Redundant Power
> Redundant "Supervisor/Route Processor"
> Would prefer a Small Chassis unit. (under 10u)
> Would also prefer a single unit as opposed to a two smaller units.
>=20
>=20
> ________________________________
>=20
> This email and any attached files may contain confidential and/or =
privileged material and is intended solely for the use of the person to =
whom it is addressed. Any review, retransmission, dissemination or other =
use of or taking of any action in reliance upon this information by =
persons or entities other than the intended recipient is prohibited. If =
you received this in error, please contact the sender immediately and =
delete it and all attachments from your computer. Progressive Solutions =
is not liable for any errors or omissions in the content or transmission =
of this email.
--=20
Jo Rhett
Net Consonance : consonant endings by net philanthropy, open source and =
other randomness
