[190141] in North American Network Operators' Group
Re: 1GE L3 aggregation
daemon@ATHENA.MIT.EDU (joel jaeggli)
Thu Jun 16 11:05:26 2016
X-Original-To: nanog@nanog.org
To: Saku Ytti <saku@ytti.fi>, nanog list <nanog@nanog.org>
From: joel jaeggli <joelja@bogus.com>
Date: Thu, 16 Jun 2016 08:05:19 -0700
In-Reply-To: <CAAeewD9MQureMSmMBV+z0ses4L6ajouAEMjfdQ7Lou2SXTaTfA@mail.gmail.com>
Errors-To: nanog-bounces@nanog.org
This is an OpenPGP/MIME signed message (RFC 4880 and 3156)
--9hivbCEPEx10ukcVIsm4H5vHkofCeoeuU
From: joel jaeggli <joelja@bogus.com>
To: Saku Ytti <saku@ytti.fi>, nanog list <nanog@nanog.org>
Message-ID: <91fd16a2-1055-c45c-de4e-474d994570ab@bogus.com>
Subject: Re: 1GE L3 aggregation
References: <CAAeewD9MQureMSmMBV+z0ses4L6ajouAEMjfdQ7Lou2SXTaTfA@mail.gmail.com>
In-Reply-To: <CAAeewD9MQureMSmMBV+z0ses4L6ajouAEMjfdQ7Lou2SXTaTfA@mail.gmail.com>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=utf-8
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
On 6/16/16 12:51 AM, Saku Ytti wrote:
> Hey,
>=20
> I've been bit poking around trying to find reasonable option for 1GE
> L3 full BGP table aggregator. It seems vendors are mostly pushing
> Satellite/Fusion for this application.
>=20
> I don't really like the added complexity and tight coupling
> Satellite/Fusion forces me. I'd prefer standards based routing
> redundancy to reduce impact of defects.
>=20
> ASR9001 and MX104 are not an options, due to control-plane scale. New
> boxes in vendor pipeline are completely ignoring 1GE.
>=20
> I've casually talked with other people, and it seems I'm not really
> alone here. My dream box would be 96xSFP + 2xQSFP28, with pretty much
> full edge features (BGP, LDP, ISIS, +1M FIB, +5M RIB, per-interface
> VLANs, ipfix or sflow, at least per-port QoS with shaper, martini
> pseudowires).
>=20
> With tinfoil hat tightly fit on my head, I wonder why vendors are
> ignoring 1GE? Are business cases entirely driven now by Amazon,
> Google, Facebook and the likes? Are SP volumes so insignificant in
> comparison it does not make sense to produce boxes for them?
> Heck even 10GE is starting to become problematic, if your application
> is anything else than DC, because you can't choose arbitrary optics.
There's not a lot of innovation going on in lower end 1G chipsets. The
natural consequent of that is that you can build a high-end gig switch
or router around a chipset supporting 10Gb/s ports or feeds and speeds
your cogs are naturally going to be rather similar to the 10Gb/s offering=
=2E
--9hivbCEPEx10ukcVIsm4H5vHkofCeoeuU
Content-Type: application/pgp-signature; name="signature.asc"
Content-Description: OpenPGP digital signature
Content-Disposition: attachment; filename="signature.asc"
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
Comment: GPGTools - http://gpgtools.org
iEYEARECAAYFAldiwC8ACgkQ8AA1q7Z/VrK0lgCePXWp8XDuHhJBBPwKBETAu3LV
k9AAn0eubMLWs7fo/3hYeNzHfuuNGs/F
=1NGk
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----
--9hivbCEPEx10ukcVIsm4H5vHkofCeoeuU--
