[c-nsp] full routing table / provider-class chassis

[Jo Rhett]

  On Jun 15, 2009, at 11:29 AM, Kevin Graham wrote:
> Given the 192 ports of 10/100/1000, presumably this is aggregating  
> customers,
> in which case it'd be best to roll these up on 7600/RSP720 (along  
> with their
> associated BGP, since most of them would probably be suitable for  
> peer-groups).
> uRPF wouldn't be a problem, and hopefully ACL's would be uniform  
> enough across
> customers to share most of the ACE entries.
>
> With that compromise (namely loosing customer-customer netflow  
> detail), the
> remaining requirements for full netflow exports and the balance of  
> the BGP
> workload are feasible for any of ASR1k, GSR, or CRS-1.

We don't have core and edge -- our switches do both.   Every port on  
the switch is either a BGP peer/uplink/downlink or a customer.  Every  
port layer3-routed with only a few handfuls of customers with dual  
links.

Purchasing a switch to be the edge and then another to handle BGP  
seems a bit of overkill for our fairly small datacenters  (largest  
will have around 300 customers ~ 360 ports).   I'd prefer something  
that can handle both edge and core duties.

-- 
Jo Rhett
Net Consonance : consonant endings by net philanthropy, open source  
and other randomness