If your serious I'd consider using 6500's as you'll have the scalability
you will need with high colo uptimes.
For the core routers consider 7200s but ONLY VXR's! Can't stress that
enough. GSR's might be an option further down the track when traffic
levels rise but not first up as they cost an absolute fortune.
Using smaller devices on the L3 side doesn't scale that well and as you
put it the features aren't there in the one box.
Also look into NetFlow for your accounting and flow switching (+MLS).
From all this though I must stress, do it right first time in a Colo
Business.
If you don't and get a bad rep for outages, upgrade times and throughput
you will never recover.
The business is simply too competative.
Last point, don't ignore other issues for a colo business:
- power subsystems, phase allotments, UPS's, generators
- aircon capacity and environmental monitoring
- fire suppression (FM200 etc)
- access, remote access, monitoring, statistics
- third party 24 hr access rooms or cages
These are all question you WILL be asked about by serious colo's.
Darren Ward
Imre Fitos wrote:
> > On Thu, Nov 30, 2000 at 10:41:27PM -0500, Miguel A.L. Paraz wrote:
> > > Hi,
> > >
> > > What IOS features would you recommend or have used for
> > traffic management on
> > > a small colo center:
> > > - Generic Traffic Shaping
> > > - Committed Access Rate
> > > - Weighted Fair Class Based Queueing
> > >
> > > Can the small L3 Catalysts (only doing Fast Ethernet) do
> > this, or would you
> > > do it on a 72xx serving a L2 switch?
> > >
> > > Thanks for your experiences.
> > >
> >
> > Generic traffic shaping would be the best thing I think. CAR
> > isn't intended
> > for customer traffic shaping, and probably wouldn't work too well.
> > Don't know whether the L3 Catalysts can do these, but
> > certainly when we
> > looked at the features they didn't seem to support some other
> > features that
> > were important to us such as NAT.
>
> I know that Catalyst 2948G-L3 switches do rate-limiting per interface,
> and they can also route. Not sure why you would need CB-WFQ in a cheap
> colo environment though.
This archive was generated by hypermail 2b29 : Sun Aug 04 2002 - 04:12:22 EDT