[168026] in North American Network Operators' Group
Re: 10gbps peering subscriber switch recommendation
daemon@ATHENA.MIT.EDU (Aled Morris)
Mon Jan 6 13:24:41 2014
In-Reply-To: <CANeLk7Sm1jqQnZhW0XDEPE9f2rb9jV_d9dDPMm-GJ7GQC481rA@mail.gmail.com>
Date: Mon, 6 Jan 2014 18:24:19 +0000
From: Aled Morris <aledm@qix.co.uk>
To: randal k <nanog@data102.com>
Cc: NANOG list <nanog@nanog.org>
Errors-To: nanog-bounces+nanog.discuss=bloom-picayune.mit.edu@nanog.org
On 6 January 2014 17:57, randal k <nanog@data102.com> wrote:
> Good morning,
> We're in the market to move our IX peering off of our core (too much
> BGP/CPU :-/ ) and onto a dedicated switch.
>
> Anybody have a recommendation on a switch that can do the following
> without costing a fortune? I have scoured Cisco, and bang for the buck
> is ... ASR9k (way over powered for handling zero-feature IX traffic),
>
> 3-8x 10gbps ports
> 64k routes minimum, preferably 128k
> Must be able to speak BGP
> Native/functional IPv6 would be sharp!
> Basic QoS to police our ports
>
> The prefix count seems to be the killer, as our exchange table is
> getting pretty big (42k+ currently). I'm really tempted to build a
> vyatta box or similar, but would rather do something off the shelf --
> especially if it can be 1-2 gens old and cost effective.
>
>
If you don't need to carry a full Internet table, the Cisco 4500-X has
plenty of features and the 32 port model can accommodate 256k IPv4 routes.
It also does IPv6 in hardware (128k routes)
Aled
