[c-nsp] Cisco gear for hosting provider

[Peter Salanki]

-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
Hash: SHA1

I would use the 3750G alternative, hardware forwarding beats it all.  
You can come a very long way with default-routes from your upstreams  
and just having a few routes in BGP for load-balancing purposes.

20 nov 2006 kl. 01.02 skrev Rubens Kuhl Jr.:

>> 3750G EMI
>> + great price/performance ratio, 24xGE interfaces builtin
>> + no need for separate switches (uplink servers to both devices with
>> active/passive teaming)
>> + very fast hardware L3 forwarding
>> + lot of room for growth in traffic
>> + great for diffusing DDoS attacks
>> - limited QoS capabilities
>> - can't take anywhere near full internet tables (limited to  
>> something like
>> 11,000 unicast routes)
>
> Can you ask both your transit provider and backup provider to send
> default routes ? May be only the default routes, better if they send
> you some local  prefixes so you can do some best route matching
> between all 3 ways (transit, backup and peering) with the 3750G.
>
>
>
>
> Rubens
> _______________________________________________
> cisco-nsp mailing list  cisco-nsp at puck.nether.net
> https://puck.nether.net/mailman/listinfo/cisco-nsp
> archive at http://puck.nether.net/pipermail/cisco-nsp/

Sincerely

Peter Salanki
Chief Network Engineer
Bahnhof AB (AS8473)
www.bahnhof.se
Office: +46855577132
Cell: +46709174932


-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
Version: GnuPG v1.4.2.2 (Darwin)

iD8DBQFFYPHXiQKhdiFGiogRAo5uAJ40tzx8uIgovBH0KHNv1Ez4mG5RMgCfVAJU
h05QP1NJTb/H/1Hh4BwIW9g=
=yJw0
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----