I would second Ivan's comment. Unless you are a major transit operator (which beats the "small ISP" requirement), you don't really need a full view, and can do we a limited view with a default route. Arie On Sat, Jul 11, 2009 at 10:27 AM, Ivan Pepelnjak <ip@ioshints.info> wrote:
Let me be the devil's advocate: why would you need full Internet routing? Taking reasonably sized neighborhoods of your upstreams (AS paths up to X AS numbers) plus a default to your best upstream might do the trick.
Ivan
http://www.ioshints.info/about http://blog.ioshints.info/
-----Original Message----- From: Mark Radabaugh [mailto:mark@amplex.net] Sent: Friday, July 10, 2009 6:42 PM To: nanog list Subject: BGP Growth projections
I'm looking for new core routers for a small ISP and having a hard time finding something appropriate and reasonably priced. We don't have huge traffic levels (<1Gb) and are mostly running Ethernet interfaces to upstreams rather than legacy interfaces (when did OC3 become legacy?).
Lot's of choices for routers that can handle the existing BGP tables - but not so much in small platforms (1-10Gb traffic) if you assume that IPv6 is going to explode the routing table in the next 5 years. The manufacturers still seem to think low traffic routers don't need much memory or CPU.
What projections are you using regarding the default free zone over the next 5 years when picking new hardware?
--
Mark Radabaugh Amplex 419.837.5015 x21 mark@amplex.net