[c-nsp] BGP hardware requirements

[Stephen Wilcox]

Hmm I have to express some concern over the summary of responses.

The responders dont know much about your implementation, when asked  
'will this router run BGP' the answer was yes but that doesnt mean  
that the router will do its job correctly.

What isnt know is what you are trying to acheive - are you running  
BGP for internet access or a private network, do you intend to load  
full BGP tables or just take defaults. If you only have 2x2Mb  
circuits what is it doing to need BGP..

I would suggest that a 2821 is a small router and is good for low  
bandwidth edge applications. If you are needing to multihome then I  
would strongly suggest you take default routes and do not try to load  
full or partial BGP tables, the reduction in functionality is minor  
compared to the increased stability.

Steve

On 2 Sep 2007, at 02:55, Dracul wrote:

> Thanks for the inputs all. 1MB and 1MB link, 2MB and 1MB  bandwidth  
> for BGP
> would also
> not pose a problem implementing right?
>
> On 8/31/07, Hyunseog Ryu <r.hyunseog at ieee.org> wrote:
>>
>> I agree on Mark's assessment for memory upgrade.
>> If you are concerned about cost, you can find third party memory from
>> kingston or some other well-known manufacturers.
>> It is good idea to upgrade memory to max, so you don't have to  
>> shutdown
>> the router to upgrade it again.
>> Also, BGP may use lots of memory with BGP prefix number increase,  
>> and/or
>> sudden BGP routing leakage from public Internet.
>> So it's good to have memory upgrade to max when you have a chance.
>>
>> Hyun
>>
>>
>> Mark Tinka wrote:
>>> On Thursday 30 August 2007 17:51, Dracul wrote:
>>>
>>>
>>>> 1. My 2851 is already ok for 2x 2MB link BGP
>>>>
>>>
>>> Right.
>>>
>>>
>>>> 2. I need to upgrade my 256MB memory to 512 MB
>>>>
>>>
>>> I would say take the full 1GB. It's always best to max. out
>>> the memory on the routers so you have one less problem to
>>> worry about, especially if the price differential between 50%
>>> and 100% capacity is minimal.
>>>
>>>
>>>> 3. I need to replace my IOS to support a higher feature of
>>>> BGP possibly this:
>>>> ADVANCED ENTERPRISE
>>>> SERVICESc2800nm-adventerprisek9-mz.124-16.bin<http://tools.
>>>> cisco.com/ITDIT/CFN/Dispatch?act=feature&imageid=840591&plat
>>>> formFamily=268&featureSet=6&featureSelected=93,74,89,102&ava
>>>> ilSoftwares=IOS>
>>>>
>>>
>>> Right, would be best.
>>>
>>>
>>>> are my assumptions correct? By the way there would be no
>>>> issues if the links are transported through v.35
>>>> or fastethernet from the ISPs right?
>>>>
>>>
>>> Nope; as long as there are no link errors and the links are
>>> up :-).
>>>
>>> Cheers,
>>>
>>> Mark.
>>>
>>> -------------------------------------------------------------------- 
>>> ----
>>>
>>> _______________________________________________
>>> 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/
>>
>> _______________________________________________
>> 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/
>>
>
>
>
> -- 
> ===
> Support www.gawadkalinga.org
> _______________________________________________
> 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/