[c-nsp] BGP Router Considerations

Wed Mar 26 17:31:01 EDT 2008

Absolutely, that's why I said if you need it now it is probably not an
option.  However, that will change with time.  I expect the feature list to
be mostly complete a year from now.  If it is a question of long-term
planning then the platform should be considered.

Fred Reimer, CISSP, CCNP, CQS-VPN, CQS-ISS
Senior Network Engineer
Coleman Technologies, Inc.
954-298-1697

-----Original Message-----
From: David Curran [mailto:dcurran at nuvox.com] 
Sent: Wednesday, March 26, 2008 4:03 PM
To: Fred Reimer; Gert Doering; Paul Stewart
Cc: cisco-nsp at puck.nether.net
Subject: Re: [c-nsp] BGP Router Considerations

Be very mindful of features here.  The feature list for all but certain
large carriers is pretty slim pickens.

> From: Fred Reimer <freimer at ctiusa.com>
> Date: Wed, 26 Mar 2008 13:22:37 -0400
> To: Gert Doering <gert at greenie.muc.de>, Paul Stewart
<paul at paulstewart.org>
> Cc: <cisco-nsp at puck.nether.net>
> Conversation: [c-nsp] BGP Router Considerations
> Subject: Re: [c-nsp] BGP Router Considerations
> 
> Or you may want to look into the new ASR routers.  They are supposed to be
> positioned between the 7200's and the 7600's, but it doesn't sound like
you
> are really pushing that much traffic through the system.  If you need it
> "now" it's probably not an option, but if you are looking to what would be
> ideal in the near future this may be the answer.
> 
> Fred Reimer, CISSP, CCNP, CQS-VPN, CQS-ISS
> Senior Network Engineer
> Coleman Technologies, Inc.
> 954-298-1697
> 
> 
> -----Original Message-----
> From: cisco-nsp-bounces at puck.nether.net
> [mailto:cisco-nsp-bounces at puck.nether.net] On Behalf Of Gert Doering
> Sent: Wednesday, March 26, 2008 1:13 PM
> To: Paul Stewart
> Cc: cisco-nsp at puck.nether.net
> Subject: Re: [c-nsp] BGP Router Considerations
> 
> Hi,
> 
> On Wed, Mar 26, 2008 at 12:02:15PM -0400, Paul Stewart wrote:
>> What I'm considering is removing the 12012 because of the space it
> consumes
>> (does all BGP today) and replacing it with a pair of 7606's Sup720-3BXL
> etc
>> 
>> For BGP edge that's feeding 3 full BGP transit feeds and a couple hundred
>> peering sessions will the Sup720-3BXL cope ok from a memory perspective.
> 
> The Sup720 is not very fast, regarding CPU wise (= BGP update handling)
> but it will handle 3 full feeds just fine.
> 
> If you want a faster CPU, you might want to check the RSP720, but beware
> (see below).
> 
>> The traffic is not a lot (500Mb/s or so) on this network .
> 
> Traffic-wise, the Sup720 *is* fast :-)
> 
>> Thanks for any feedback.. We have lots of 6500's but everyone keeps
> telling
>> me lately to go 7600 series instead??
> 
> Basically it's the same thing.  And with IOS 12.2SX*, there was no
> difference, except chassis colour.
> 
> Then came the 7600 business unit (BU) inside Cisco and decided "we're
going
> to sell Real Routers, can't have this switch chassis crap around!" and
> forked a software train (12.2SRA/SRB/SRC) that nowadays doesn't run on
> chassis that are labeled "6500" anymore.  Just because they do an EEPROM
> check.  Otherwise there is still no difference.
> 
> There is some new hardware - the RSP720, the ES20 line cards, and the
7600-S
> chassis - that are *only* supported by SR* software.  OTOH, there are
> "LAN style" line cards, notably the 6708 8x10GE card, that only just
> recently have been supported in SRC, and as far as I have heard, SRC is
> not very mature yet.  Politely said.
> 
> OTOH, there is the 6500 business unit, that targets "enterprises" - their
> IOS fork is 12.2SXH these days.  They build nice things that ISPs might
> want to have as well, like "modular IOS with restartable processes in
> case BGP leaks memory" (and, in theory, upgrades-without-reboot, and
such),
> the Sup720-10G supervisor engine, and thus.
> 
> Until recently, buying a 7600+Sup720 and running SXF/SXH was what we
> considered "future proof" - you have a chassis that supports all the
> software that's out there, and are saved from the internal politics
> bullshit.  Unfortunately, that's not completely true anymore - the 7600-S
> chassis are NOT supported by SXH IOS, and as far as we have been told,
> there are no plans to do so.
> 
> 
> So - what's the summary?  Cisco internal politics is hurting customers.
> Whatever you decide upon, you'll be f***ed in a year or so.
> 
> Get a Juniper M7i.  For your traffic needs, it's definitely fast enough
> - and the CPU to handle the BGP updates is much faster.
> 
> gert
> 
> -- 
> USENET is *not* the non-clickable part of WWW!
>  
> //www.muc.de/~gert/
> Gert Doering - Munich, Germany
> gert at greenie.muc.de
> fax: +49-89-35655025
> gert at net.informatik.tu-muenchen.de
> _______________________________________________
> 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 email and any attachments ("Message") may contain legally privileged
and/or confidential information.  If you are not the addressee, or if this
Message has been addressed to you in error, you are not authorized to read,
copy, or distribute it, and we ask that you please delete it (including all
copies) and notify the sender by return email.  Delivery of this Message to
any person other than the intended recipient(s) shall not be deemed a waiver
of confidentiality and/or a privilege.
-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: smime.p7s
Type: application/x-pkcs7-signature
Size: 3080 bytes
Desc: not available
Url : https://puck.nether.net/pipermail/cisco-nsp/attachments/20080326/d275452d/attachment.bin 