[168105] in North American Network Operators' Group
SV: 10gbps peering subscriber switch recommendation
daemon@ATHENA.MIT.EDU (Andreas Larsen)
Thu Jan 9 02:42:44 2014
From: Andreas Larsen <andreas.larsen@ip-only.se>
To: randal k <nanog@data102.com>, NANOG list <nanog@nanog.org>
Date: Thu, 9 Jan 2014 08:42:31 +0100
In-Reply-To: <CANeLk7Sm1jqQnZhW0XDEPE9f2rb9jV_d9dDPMm-GJ7GQC481rA@mail.gmail.com>
Errors-To: nanog-bounces+nanog.discuss=bloom-picayune.mit.edu@nanog.org
Xtreme x480 can do this and has upto 6 * 10G ports.=20
It can actually hold a full bgp table also and is preatty cheap.
// Andreas
Med v=E4nlig h=E4lsning
Andreas Larsen
=A0
IP-Only Telecommunication AB| Postadress: 753 81 UPPSALA | Bes=F6ksadress: =
S:t Persgatan 6, Uppsala |
Telefon: +46 (0)18 843 10 00 | Direkt: +46 (0)18 843 10 56
www.ip-only.se
-----Ursprungligt meddelande-----
Fr=E5n: randal k [mailto:nanog@data102.com]=20
Skickat: den 6 januari 2014 18:57
Till: NANOG list
=C4mne: 10gbps peering subscriber switch recommendation
Good morning,
We're in the market to move our IX peering off of our core (too much BGP/CP=
U :-/ ) 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 ... ASR9=
k (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 p=
retty big (42k+ currently). I'm really tempted to build a vyatta box or sim=
ilar, but would rather do something off the shelf -- especially if it can b=
e 1-2 gens old and cost effective.
I'm certain that this same situation is scratching many other folks as exch=
anges become more important.
Thanks for your input in advance -- stay warm!
Randal
