[c-nsp] 2 full BGP feeds on 3750?...expanded

[Mathias at TelecityRedbus.com]

I'll go a step further with that reasoning. Do we need BGP at all in
that environment? Unless I am missing something I'll argue no. Static
route and floating static route will do the trick here.

Regards,
Mathias

-----Original Message-----
From: cisco-nsp-bounces at puck.nether.net
[mailto:cisco-nsp-bounces at puck.nether.net] On Behalf Of Mark Tohill
Sent: 06 September 2006 11:40
To: peter.salanki at bahnhof.net
Cc: cisco-nsp at puck.nether.net
Subject: Re: [c-nsp] 2 full BGP feeds on 3750?...expanded

 
Hi Peter,
 
I may be digressing here, but on the subject of the validity of full BGP
routes in relatively small SP environments, is there anything else apart
from the obvious loss of granularity in moving from full feeds to a
default? We are in a 'muti-homed to same provider' scenario.
 
Is there any strong argument to maintain these assuming CPU, memory are
n't restricted?
 
Thanks,
Mark
 
------------------------------

Message: 12
Date: Tue, 5 Sep 2006 22:51:22 +0200
From: Peter Salanki <peter.salanki at bahnhof.net>
Subject: Re: [c-nsp] 2 full BGP feeds on 3750?
To: Anton Kapela <tk at 5ninesdata.com>
Cc: cisco-nsp at puck.nether.net, jason evans <jevans24 at gmail.com>
Message-ID: <B532EF2F-832E-4C9F-84CD-C6A577F116E4 at bahnhof.net>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=US-ASCII; delsp=yes; format=flowed

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

I agree on that solution. I believe that the meaning of having full 
table in a small-sp environment is highly overrated, usually only a 
small part of the internet represents 60-90% of your traffic

Sincerely

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


5 sep 2006 kl. 22.40 skrev Anton Kapela:

>
>
>> Anybody successfully multi-homing using a 3750 with a full
>> BGP table from each provider? I'm thinking no, but ...
>
> On 3550/3750/$low_end_l3_switch you cannot ever hope to receive &
> install a full table of routes.
>
> With that said (and after eyeballing
> http://bgp.potaroo.net/rv-index.html for a while), you could probably
> put your switch into the 'routing' sdm profile (11k unicast l3 
> entries),
> filter all prefixes longer than /15 and probably not overflow the 
> tcam.
> This would get you some reasonable directivity (used loosely) toward
> your largest destination netblocks given your platform. Set a 0/0
> towards some upstream, and you're good to go.
>
> -Tk
>
> _______________________________________________
> 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/




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

iD8DBQFE/eNLiQKhdiFGiogRAuudAJ0euzpk5acij89PFTrgsJA0ZqI0HACfcPR7
n4yHOpPcCpK9tlJOIyRGW84=
=TyxP
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----


------------------------------

_______________________________________________
cisco-nsp mailing list
cisco-nsp at puck.nether.net
https://puck.nether.net/mailman/listinfo/cisco-nsp


End of cisco-nsp Digest, Vol 46, Issue 10
*****************************************

_______________________________________________
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/
This e-mail is intended only for the use of the addressees named above and may be confidential. 
If you are not an addressee you must not use any information contained in nor copy it nor inform any person other than the addressees of its existence or contents.