[155826] in North American Network Operators' Group
Re: Bird vs Quagga revisited (MP-BGP RR)
daemon@ATHENA.MIT.EDU (Thomas Mangin)
Fri Aug 24 06:39:24 2012
From: Thomas Mangin <thomas.mangin@exa-networks.co.uk>
In-Reply-To: <1a7401cd8138$40544a70$c0fcdf50$@oneunified.net>
Date: Fri, 24 Aug 2012 11:38:30 +0100
To: Raymond Burkholder <ray@oneunified.net>
Cc: nanog@nanog.org
Errors-To: nanog-bounces+nanog.discuss=bloom-picayune.mit.edu@nanog.org
On 23 Aug 2012, at 15:04, Raymond Burkholder <ray@oneunified.net> wrote:
> To expand the opinion set, how do Quagga, Bird, exaBGP, OpenBGPd hold =
up for
> handling Multi-Protocol BGP Route Reflector duties in a BGP/MPLS =
environment
> for a smaller ISP?
I am using BIRD as a RR between a busy VRF and our core and will not =
change it until the PPS are over what the box can pass :)
EuroIX members were presented on a comparison of RR : ASR 1001 / 1002, =
Bird 1.3.6 / 1.3.7 / OpenBGPd - Quagga is not in the list as they do not =
use it , they migrated away from it after too many issues AFAICR.
They found that both cisco routers which are designed to be used as RR =
and BIRD were performing very well (even more when you look at what CPU =
is on those cisco routers).
The talk made at Euro-IX was under the password protected section but I =
found it on their site :
=
http://www.ams-ix.net/downloads/AMS-IX%20Route%20Server%20Implementations%=
20Performance.pdf
They presented their second testing at RIPE :
=
https://ripe64.ripe.net/presentations/49-Follow_Up_AMS-IX_route-server_tes=
t_Euro-IX_20th_RIPE64.pdf
Thomas=
