[c-nsp] Router/switch recommendations for colocation

[David]

I'll agree that folks certainly don't follow the BGP-advertisement
best-practices, but some of the stuff you see in IPv6 advertisements today
are still folks experimenting with the protocol. ISPs themselves need to
police this in regards to how they allow their customers to peer with them,
and have stringent requirements for the advertisements they receive from the
customers. Most Tier1 SPs in the US do that already, and the smaller guys
need to follow suit. Majority of people polluting the table are operating
networks outside of the US. And such productive discussions about the state
of the global table, and what needs to be done, etc. are good to have at
places like NANOG, but customers have needs today and budgets are still
tight, and that's one of the reasons enterprises hold off on deploying or
thinking about IPv6 (a bad practice for sure). But again I come back to the
original goal of the post, two IPv4 sessions, no IPv6 (at least yet). The
poster isn't interested in the state of what's going on with the Internet at
large, rather what piece of equipment to use to solve this particular
technical requirement. I am interested in what you think is the proper piece
of equipment that best fits here.

David.

On Mon, Jan 31, 2011 at 10:28 AM, Michael K. Smith - Adhost <
mksmith at adhost.com> wrote:

>  Not peer via IPv6?  Really?  And, given what we have experienced with the
> v4 routing table bloat, I can’t imagine that moving to v6 will change
> operators’ tendencies to deaggregate.  It just means we have more space to
> do it.    If you check the v6 table today, you will already see lots of
> more-specific announcements, /64’s (depending on your provider), etc. that
> shouldn’t be there.  I haven’t heard anyone say that v6 was going to help
> the DFZ keep from expanding.  Quite the contrary.
>
>
>
> Mike
>
>
>
> *From:* David [mailto:webnetwiz at gmail.com]
> *Sent:* Monday, January 31, 2011 10:22 AM
> *To:* Michael K. Smith - Adhost
> *Cc:* cisco-nsp at puck.nether.net
>
> *Subject:* Re: [c-nsp] Router/switch recommendations for colocation
>
>
>
> Why would there be a need to forklift? If the box will not do peering via
> IPv6, then modify the CAM profile to allocate more memory for IPv4, and that
> takes care of 500+K IPv4 routes. The key thing here is how many routes are
> held in the FIB, which holds the best routes after BGP machine runs through
> its calculations, and as long as the box can hold all of the peer's routes
> in the RIB-in, then you're ok. Hopefully when we allocate all /8 this year,
> folks will start moving over to IPv6. With IPv6's aggregation capabilities,
> you won't need such a large table, so you're ok there. The OP is only doing
> two BGP sessions, and it seems requires a multitude of GigE ports, so an ASR
> here gets expensive fast for this type of deployment. I am curious though
> Mike... what box would you suggest here?
>
> David.
>
> On Mon, Jan 31, 2011 at 9:24 AM, Michael K. Smith - Adhost <
> mksmith at adhost.com> wrote:
>
>
> > -----Original Message-----
> > From: cisco-nsp-bounces at puck.nether.net [mailto:cisco-nsp-
> > bounces at puck.nether.net] On Behalf Of David Kotlerewsky
> > Sent: Monday, January 31, 2011 9:08 AM
> > To: cisco-nsp at puck.nether.net
> > Subject: Re: [c-nsp] Router/switch recommendations for colocation
> >
>
> > Sooo, does it have to be Cisco???
> >
> > I am currently helping a customer with a very similar situation, and I
> think
> > based on what you're trying to do here, you should look outside of what
> > Cisco can offer you. In my mind this is a perfect fit for a Brocade
> NetIron
> > CER 2000 switch/router. It can take in multiple BGP feeds, it has MPLS
> > features if needed, oh, and it's only a 1U box with RPSUs. Also,
> depending
> > in the actual model you choose to go with, I think you should be able to
> get
> > it cheaper than an ASR, and support costs are lower. Cisco 37XX switches
> are
> > really not data center grade for lack of memory/buffer space and
> MPLS/VPLS
> > features. I have customers running NetIrons in their cores as well as PoP
> PE
> > routers, and everything works as its supposed to.
> >
> > Just my $0.02
> >
> > David.
>
> From the literature:
>
> The NetIron CER 2000 can store up to
> 512,000 IPv4 or 128,000 IPv6 unicast
> routes, enough to accommodate the full
> IPv4 Internet routing table today and
> provide a smooth migration path to IPv6.
>
> That is not going to hold you for very long, IMO.  If you buy this box for
> BGP you are going to be doing a forklift upgrade in less than two years.
>
> Mike
>
>
>