[c-nsp] BGP Tunnel or other alternative

[Brian Feeny]

Ok, you all I made a mistake and said 6500's in part of that email, 
what I meant was
6400 NRP's.  Sorry about that.

So if anyone has experience with 6400 NRP's taking in BGP (1 iBGP feed 
and 1 eBGP feed)
and not having too much trouble, please let me know.

Brian

On Nov 1, 2004, at 11:43 PM, Steve Francis wrote:

> Brian Feeny wrote:
>
>>
>> 1. The Cat6500's do not run BGP.  I have heard from others that 
>> 6500's can't
>> handle BGP well, and so have avoided it.  If someone has something to 
>> say
>> contrary to this, please let me know (perhaps an IOS version) so I 
>> can look into this
>> as running BGP on the 6500's is a solution.
>>
> In my experience, 6500's with 512 MB Sup2  or above running in native 
> mode handle BGP fine. Hybrid mode resulted in lots of bad crashes on 
> BGP 6500's, but that was several years ago.
> Native has always been fine re BGP, at least for 2 full peerings, a 
> dozen peers and a few iBGP sessions, which was the most I put on one.
>
---------------------------------------------
Brian Feeny, CCIE #8036, CISSP
Network Engineer
ShreveNet Inc.

-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: PGP.sig
Type: application/pgp-signature
Size: 186 bytes
Desc: This is a digitally signed message part
Url : https://puck.nether.net/pipermail/cisco-nsp/attachments/20041102/a71c393b/PGP.bin