[c-nsp] ASR 1002-F BGP table size

Wed Mar 24 05:50:28 EDT 2010

HI Rick,

Unfortunately you are limited to the vendor's portfolio, both giants (Cisco
and Juniper ) has similar portfolios.
Cisco ASR1002/4/6 and Juniper M71/M10 will provide you with multi-gig
bandwidth, if they do not meet your budget or it's beyond your bandwidth
needs you will fall back to a processing based routers like 7200 where there
is no Control/Forwarding planes separation and it is running monolithic IOS.

On Tue, Mar 23, 2010 at 4:00 PM, Rick Ernst <cnsp at shreddedmail.com> wrote:

> It looks like I need to look closer at the modular boxes. "ASR" was the
> answer I kept seeing for the role, but the forwarding capacity of the
> 1002/4/6 (more specifically the ESP 5/10/20) was well beyond what I needed.
>
> As a note, my network design does not have a capacity increase needed for
> the role these boxes are in.  They are essentially the peering/link
> end-point for GigE upstream.  By the time we grow to 10GE (rather than
> additional GigE) links, we'll probably be on IPv7 and need new hardware
> anyway. :)
>
>
> Thanks,
>
> On Tue, Mar 23, 2010 at 6:29 AM, Arie Vayner (avayner) <avayner at cisco.com
> >wrote:
>
> > Rick,
> >
> > As the ASR1K is a hardware based platform the route scale limitation
> > does not only come from the amount of RAM it has, but also from the
> > capacity of the ESP (forwarding plane).
> >
> > If you are looking at sparing/redundancy, take a 2nd look at the
> > ASR1006... Or maybe just the ASR1004. The advantage of the modular
> > models is that as you need more forwarding plane capacity, you can
> > upgrade the RP/ESP modules, and gain dramatic performance boost.
> >
> > You can find the details here:
> > http://www.cisco.com/en/US/prod/collateral/routers/ps9343/data_sheet_c78
> > -450070.html<
> http://www.cisco.com/en/US/prod/collateral/routers/ps9343/data_sheet_c78%0A-450070.html
> >
> >
> > (For the 1002F, we use ESP2.5, which has, in general, 50% of the
> > capacity of a ESP5, hence the 500K IPv4 routes)
> >
> > Arie
> >
> > -----Original Message-----
> > From: cisco-nsp-bounces at puck.nether.net
> > [mailto:cisco-nsp-bounces at puck.nether.net] On Behalf Of Rick Ernst
> > Sent: Tuesday, March 23, 2010 14:49
> > To: Mounir Mohamed Ali
> > Cc: cisco-nsp at puck.nether.net
> > Subject: Re: [c-nsp] ASR 1002-F BGP table size
> >
> > Ah. So I did remember the 500K IPv4 limit. :( Where did you find the
> > docs
> > with the 500K limit.
> >
> > Since it has 1GB RAM, the route limitation must be "somewhere else"?
> >
> > I'll need to see how the 1002 (non-F) works out. Maybe sparing RP/ESP
> > will
> > work out better than having a full spare chassis.  Any other platform to
> > fill this role?
> >
> > Thanks,
> >
> >
> > On Mon, Mar 22, 2010 at 6:39 PM, Mounir Mohamed Ali <
> > mounirmohammad at gmail.com> wrote:
> >
> > > Hi Rick,
> > >
> > > Here is a quick comparison.
> > >
> > > The Cisco ASR 1002-F has RP1 with 1G RAM, ESP 2.5 with 1G RAM (2.5Gbps
> > > bandwidth), SIP-10, 1SPA, and 4 GE ports  built in chassis, running
> > IOS-XE
> > > and has SW redundancy via VM, capcable to have 500K IPv4 and 125K Ipv6
> > >
> > > The Cisco ASR1002 has 1 RP1 integrated in the chassis comes with 4GB
> > RAM by
> > > default, 1 ESP slot for ESP5/10 to provide 5Gbps/10Gbps bandwidth, it
> > also
> > > has 4-built in GE-ports, 3 SPA ports, running IOS XE and has SW
> > redundancy
> > > via VM.
> > >
> > > On Mon, Mar 22, 2010 at 7:30 PM, Rick Ernst <cnsp at shreddedmail.com>
> > wrote:
> > >
> > >> I'm having a hard (impossible) time locating performance and BGP
> > specs for
> > >> the ASR 1002-F.  Since it has a "not really an ESP" built-in, the
> > >> ESP5/10/20
> > >> specs aren't helping me a lot.  Other than it should have ~2.5Gbs
> > >> forwarding
> > >> (full-duplex?), I'can't find anything definitive on it.  References
> > keep
> > >> coming up with the ASR-1002 with the removable ESP.
> > >>
> > >> I'm looking at replacing our upstream routers (7206-VXR/G1) on GigE
> > links
> > >> with something that can better handle D/DoS attacks.  The original
> > thought
> > >> was to use a small 6500/Sup720.  Empirical testing shows that Netflow
> > >> (even
> > >> with the table size under control) really beats up on the SP CPU.
> > The
> > >> ASR-1002F seems like it should fit the bill, but I found something
> > (that
> > >> I've now lost) that mentioned 500K routes.
> > >>
> > >> I'm looking for a device that:
> > >>  - is a "lightbulb"; relatively inexpensive, single-upstream
> > >>  -  3 GigE ports
> > >>  - 1 Gbs full-duplex (2Gbs total) hardware forwarding
> > >>  - uRPF
> > >>  - Netflow
> > >>  - 1,000,000+ IPv4 BGP routes
> > >>  - IPv6 support
> > >>
> > >> As an additional comment on the Sup720/Netflow, CPU on the SP hit
> > ~30%
> > >> with
> > >> only a couple hundred Mbs and roughly 50% TCAM utilization.
> > >>
> > >> Is the ASR-1002F what I'm looking for? Can anybody direct me to 1002F
> > (vs
> > >> modular 1002) specs?
> > >>
> > >> Thanks,
> > >> _______________________________________________
> > >> 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/
> > >>
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > > --
> > > Mounir Mohamed, CCIE No.19573(R&S, SP)
> > > Senior Network Engineer, Core Team
> > > NOOR Data Networks, SAE
> > > http://mounirmohamed.wordpress.com
> > > http://www.linkedin.com/in/mounirmohamed
> > >
> > _______________________________________________
> > 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/
>

-- 
Mounir Mohamed, CCIE No.19573(R&S, SP)
Senior Network Engineer, Core Team
NOOR Data Networks, SAE
http://mounirmohamed.wordpress.com
http://www.linkedin.com/in/mounirmohamed