--- On Tue, 3/27/12, Tom Daly <tom@dyn.com> wrote:
From: Tom Daly <tom@dyn.com> Subject: Re: Force10 E Series at the edge? To: "Brent Roberts" <Brent.Roberts@progressive-solutions.com> Cc: "NANOG" <nanog@nanog.org> Date: Tuesday, March 27, 2012, 8:59 PM Brent, Your options include, for smaller boxes:
- Brocade CER series, but make sure you the -RT versions due to RAM (haven't tried, though) - Juniper MX (MX80 is working well for us) - Cisco ASR1006 (heard a lot about BGP price issues)
But for 300mb/sec, what not OpenBSD + Quagga?
Tom
I was very happy with the E300 as a data center core switch handling multiple full feeds (around 15) with about 10x the
talking about. The only problem I had was that Force10 didn't have a useful (basically forklift) upgrade to get more IPv4
the more I talked to them and the more I showed them
demonstrating what we'd need for prefix space assuming even the most conservative assumptions at depletion, the more I realized they really Did Not Get It. In fact, their brand new architecture recently announced had only 500k prefixes allowed, at a time that the Juniper MX platform handled 2million easily.
So I would be fine using Force10 again, given the following changes: 1. Large limits on IP prefixes allowed 2. Reallocation of useless memory from stupid things like MAC tables to prefixes (data centers have very few MACs, very many prefixes) 3. Command line logging
The units worked great at failover, never had any
----- Original Message ----- traffic you are prefixes, and the graphs problems gracefully
failing over from one RP to another, but if you have to
cold boot > them for any reason it takes like 5 minutes :( > > On Mar 27, 2012, at 2:21 PM, Roberts, Brent wrote: > > Is anyone running an E300 Series Chassis at the internet edge with > > multiple Full BGP feeds? 95th percent would be about 300 meg of > > traffic. BGP session count would be between 2 and 4 Peers. > > 6k internal Prefix count as it stands right now. Alternative are > > welcome. Thought about the ASR1006 but I need some local switching > > as well. > > > > Full requirements include > > Full internet Peering over GigE Links. > > Fully Redundant Power > > Redundant "Supervisor/Route Processor" > > Would prefer a Small Chassis unit. (under 10u) > > Would also prefer a single unit as opposed to a two smaller units. > >
I can't speak for forece10 which is DELL now. As Joe mentioned, the biggest problem is "their-support" of 680k prefixes with the QUAD-CAM linecards. DUAL-CAM line cards do 512K in theory. Regular ones don't work because thay support 320K prefifex and "die" around 300K They have other idiotic-implementations(when to set/NOT set ospf forwarding-address) buggy vrrp implemtation but I am told "it will be fixed in the next release of FTOS. So, NO! the 300i, 600 or 120 are good a good fit as edge/core layer devices. On a sepatare note.....their S50 switches; I have found to be "great" as long as your l2 environment doesn't require Rapid-PVST. They do PVST but 802.1W is a single instance. ./Randy