|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| home | help | back | first | fref | pref | prev | next | nref | lref | last | post |
X-Original-To: nanog@nanog.org From: Jason Lixfeld <jason+nanog@lixfeld.ca> In-Reply-To: <99dc1aab-1682-9fb5-1e79-c36dd944603b@seacom.mu> Date: Thu, 20 Oct 2016 12:29:00 -0400 To: Mark Tinka <mark.tinka@seacom.mu> Cc: nanog@nanog.org Errors-To: nanog-bounces@nanog.org > On Oct 20, 2016, at 12:23 PM, Mark Tinka <mark.tinka@seacom.mu> wrote: >=20 >=20 >=20 > On 20/Oct/16 17:12, Jason Lixfeld wrote: >=20 >>=20 >> It=E2=80=99s only more expensive the more big vendor products you = use. Sometimes you need to (i.e.: Boxes with big RIB/FIBs for DFZ, or = deep buffers), but more and more, people are looking to OCP/White Box = Switches [1][2]. >=20 > It doesn't sound like the OP needs massive FIB space, so he could = implement FIB filtering and run the smaller boxes that have all the = features but lack the FIB real estate of the larger routers/switches. >=20 > This is what we do for our Metro-E Access networks. >=20 > Mark. Likely not at the PE, true, but he did say Internet access, so I err=E2=80= =99d on the side of assuming DFZ, somewhere. If that assumption is = true, FIB resources for the SP interconnect nodes and filtering towards = the PEs, absolutely.=
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| home | help | back | first | fref | pref | prev | next | nref | lref | last | post |