[c-nsp] BGP on 6400 NRP, anyone doing it?

[Brian Feeny]

Chad,

What code are you using?  All code for NRP's seems to be ED, and just 
about all the code
I looked at 12.1 and forward not only has a ton of BGP bugs, but bugs 
that are practical
show stoppers and would make it very difficult to attempt to use.

Brian


On Nov 3, 2004, at 12:10 AM, Cisco List wrote:

> We're running BGP on our 6400 ( 4 NRPs currently) without any issues.
> We aren't feeding them full tables however since that would likely make
> them fall over pretty quickly.  Our main reason for running BGP on them
> is to support MPLS VPNs for a bunch of DSL, T1, Ethernet, DS3, etc.
> service interworking in support of an MPLS VPN solution set.
>
> If we had a request to do full routes to a customer we'd first try to
> talk them out of it and then fall back to a BGP multi-hop setup so they
> could peer with a far more capable router.
>
> Good luck,
> Chad
>
>
> ----------------------------
> Chad E Skidmore
> One Eighty Networks, Inc. - AS12111
> http://www.go180.net
> 509-688-8180
>
> -----Original Message-----
> From: Brian Feeny [mailto:signal at shreve.net]
> Posted At: Tuesday, November 02, 2004 7:06 AM
> Posted To: Cisco List
> Conversation: [c-nsp] BGP on 6400 NRP, anyone doing it?
> Subject: [c-nsp] BGP on 6400 NRP, anyone doing it?
>
>
>
> I posted a message last night, and accidently typed "6500" when what I
> meant was 6400's (NRP's), so I am re-asking a question here and hoping
> some of you can give me some feedback.
>
> Is anyone doing BGP on 6400 NRP's?  If so, is it working ok?
>
> Specifically I have a set of NRP's that need to take 1 iBGP feed and 1
> eBGP feed,  and I have been told that these do not play well with BGP,
> the sessions drop for unknown reasons, etc and are just unreliable when
> it comes to thinking about running BGP on them.
>
> I have BGP working on RSM's/NPE's/RSP's, etc with only 128MB in similar
> situations and although they aren't speedy gonzales, it does work.  So 
> I
> am skeptical about NRP's not being able to do this, and if anyone has
> anything to say about it please let me know.
>
> Brian
>
> ---------------------------------------------
> Brian Feeny, CCIE #8036, CISSP
> Network Engineer
> ShreveNet Inc.
>
>
>
---------------------------------------------
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/20041103/3581c227/PGP.bin