[c-nsp] BGP router upgrade

[Mark Tinka]

On Friday, August 12, 2011 09:31:08 PM Lars Eidsheim wrote:

> I am planning to upgrade our BGP edge from a Cisco
> 7200/NPE-G1. The NPE-G1 suits our needs at the moment,
> but as we are looking to interconnect with more
> services, do more localpeerings and implement IPv6 in
> near future this might a good timing to upgrade.

I'd have suggested the NPE-G2 if your requirements are 
graceful and cost is an issue, but sounds like you're keen 
on a hardware-based platform :-).

> As we are running a few 6500s in our network already I
> was thinking to install a 6500 with SUP720-3BXL and a
> 6724-SFP linecard to replace our existing 7200 platform.
> The 3BXL will keep-up with full BGP feed and the
> platform can easily be upgraded to 10 gbit/s with a new
> line card (in example 6704-10GE).
> 
> I know others are using the 6500/SUP720-3BXL for this
> purpose, but as the 6500 is designed a  switch platform
> i would like hear others opinion on the subject?

So I'd say stay away from the 6500 unless you're looking to 
buy the new SUP2T.

For the amount of peering you want to do, the CPU on the 
SUP720-3BXL (and the RSP720-3CXL for the 7600) sucks real 
bad! You're actually better off with an NPE-G1 :-).

Also, the SUP720-3BXL has a number of forwarding limitations 
(search the archives on this list, you won't run out of 
reasons not to buy them).

I'd suggest looking at the ASR1000 platform. The ASR1006 is 
especially nice for what you want - control and forwarding 
plane redundancy, support for 10Gbps SPA's (might not be 
line rate depending on what other SPA's you plug into the 
SIP carrier cards), a quick CPU for your BGP needs, lots of 
cool features (good parity with the 7200 for peering needs), 
and long-term support from Cisco as a true replacement for 
the successful 7200.

> Maybe I
> should be looking to other platforms as well, like
> Huawei or Juniper?

Since you're looking at 10Gbps ports for your upgrade, 
forget about the M7i/M10i units.

Your smallest box will be an MX80, but these don't have 
control or forwarding plane redundancy. For that, the 
smallest box I'd recommend that makes sense is an MX240 
(chassis' are cheap, so you can actually get a bigger one 
for almost the same money).

Stay away from the M120, it's pricey and won't be dense 
enough of you need many Ethernet ports in the future.

Hope this helps.

Mark.
-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: signature.asc
Type: application/pgp-signature
Size: 836 bytes
Desc: This is a digitally signed message part.
URL: <https://puck.nether.net/pipermail/cisco-nsp/attachments/20110813/3c80a282/attachment.pgp>