[c-nsp] L3 Switch as a BGP Gateway

[farisy at gmail.com]

Dear Jay,
As far as I know, IPv4 BGP entry is more than 300k entry, I don't think it will suite with a 3750.
Please refer to routing handling from its datasheet. 
I'm agree with the other, if you would run default gateway for multihomed upstream, 3750 will do.
Hope it help.


Rgrds,
-farisy-

-----Original Message-----
From: Jay Hennigan <jay at west.net>
Sender: cisco-nsp-bounces at puck.nether.net
Date: Mon, 27 Jun 2011 13:44:07 
To: Murphy, Jay, DOH<Jay.Murphy at state.nm.us>
Cc: cisco-nsp at puck.nether.net<cisco-nsp at puck.nether.net>
Subject: Re: [c-nsp] L3 Switch as a BGP Gateway

On 6/27/11 1:30 PM, Murphy, Jay, DOH wrote:
> How about when you stack them as a logical switch. Couldn't one leverage the memory and processing of the stacking?

If you're taking just a default eBGP route from each external neighbor
and using multi-homing as a primary/failover, you can get away with it.
 "Multi-homed BGP gateway" in your original post implies taking at least
a partial table from a diversity of transit providers and/or peers, and
these switches just aren't capable of dealing with anywhere near that
many routes.


> -----Original Message-----
> From: cisco-nsp-bounces at puck.nether.net [mailto:cisco-nsp-bounces at puck.nether.net] On Behalf Of Jay Hennigan
> Sent: Monday, June 27, 2011 1:11 PM
> To: cisco-nsp at puck.nether.net
> Subject: Re: [c-nsp] L3 Switch as a BGP Gateway
> 
> On 6/27/11 11:59 AM, Jason Greenberg wrote:
>> Can someone advise me as to why a 3750 L3 Switch (Metro Model) wouldn't outperform a 7300 series router as a multi-homed BGP gateway?  ISRs and Enterprise class routers are still quite a bit more expensive than the L3 Switches, but I'm starting to not understand why.   I understand that L3 switches are less feature rich on the routing end, but suppose that our ASAs are doing most of the complicated filtering.    I know it doesn't sound "right" to have a 3750G used in this manner, but I am having a hard time finding any real reason why not to do it.
> 
> The memory and number of routes are far too small to use these as a
> border router.  Generally adequate for iBGP to inject customer routes
> into your network but way too little for an Internet-facing border.

--
Jay Hennigan - CCIE #7880 - Network Engineering - jay at impulse.net
Impulse Internet Service  -  http://www.impulse.net/
Your local telephone and internet company - 805 884-6323 - WB6RDV
_______________________________________________
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/