RE: Cisco Router best for full BGP on a sub 5K bidget 7500 7200 or other vendor ?
Well this has been quite a stimulating discussion! It appears the sweet spot would be as follows: 7507 Dual A/C Power.....~ 750 Dual RSP4 with 256 MEM .~900 VIP2-50 with 128 MB RAM.~400 Now this can all be obtained for about 2000.00 perhaps... The problem is the Fast Ethernet Interfaces CX-FEIP-2TX ( 400?) PA-FE-TX (250) The PA-2FE-TX is about 1600.00- better to get a second PA-FE-TX with second VIP2-50 Now why is the CX-FEIP-2TX so much cheaper than the PA-2FE-TX ????? Alexander Hagen Etheric Networks Incorporated, A California Corporation 527 Sixth Street No 371261 Montara CA 94037 Main Line: (650)-728-3375 Direct Line: (650) 728-3086 Cell: (650) 740-0650 (Does not work at our office in Montara) Home: (Emgcy or weekends) 650-728-5820 fax: (650) 240-1750 http://www.etheric.net -----Original Message----- From: Roldan, Brad [mailto:BRoldan@covad.com] Sent: Sunday, February 08, 2004 12:40 PM To: Alexander Hagen Subject: RE: Cisco Router best for full BGP on a sub 5K bidget 7500 7200 or other vendor ? Alex, I used the RS3000 extensively in a previous life for a Metro E provider. These are great Layer 2 switches. When it comes to Layer 3 services, Riverstone has been lacking. The last firmware revision I looked at was in the 9.x series. At that time, routing protocols, such as BGP, were still evolving in terms of basic support. For instance, at the time BGP communities were not supported. I don't know hoe Riverstone's support for Layer 3 routing has evolved since 9.x. Hope this helps. Brad -- Covad Communications 2510 Zanker Road San Jose, CA 95131 +1-408-434-2048 broldan@covad.com -----Original Message----- From: owner-nanog@merit.edu [mailto:owner-nanog@merit.edu] On Behalf Of Alexander Hagen Sent: Saturday, February 07, 2004 5:49 AM To: nanog@merit.edu Subject: RE: Cisco Router best for full BGP on a sub 5K bidget 7500 7200 or other vendor ? Montara is between Pacifica and Half Moon Bay. Everyone has a different perspective - but all valid. However I would say if you are going to go Cisco - and you have no other BGP gear under Smartnet - you might look at the 3725 maxed out. It is new and you will get support and available for 5,000.00 online, equipped with two onboard Fast Ethernet ports. You are likely to buy only single FE modules at 350.00 rather than 2FE's which are hard to find for cheap, and upgrading memory to 256 Megs DRAM is only an addl 150.00. With that said.... I found a rather stupid article that gave the Riverstone high marks. http://www.nwfusion.com/reviews/2003/0714rev.html?page=1 http://research.mwjournal.com/data/jspdetail?id=1025118725_252&type=PROD &src=mwave&x=841473789 The RS 3000 has 20 gbps non blocking. I am likely to go with the Riverstone. I think I can get it for under 2K with 24 10/100 ports, 256 MB of memory, and 20 gbps non blocking switching fabric. Although I will likely place a Cisco box behind it (eventually) for IPSec and the like. Platform Features Feature-rich Wire-speed Services * IP routing, unicast, and multicast * Routing in hardware on each line card * LSR and LER MPLS support in hardware * RSVP-TE and LDP label distribution and signaling * MPLS traffic engineering support * Security (ACLs, L2 filters) * Layer 4 application-flow switching and QoS * Network Address Translation (NAT) * Hardware-based Rate Limiting * Jumbo Frame support * VLANs based on port or protocol * Server Load Balancing (LSNAT) Highly Fault Tolerant * Redundant power supplies (RS 3000) * Hot-swappable media modules * Standards-based VRRP * Layer 2 and 3 redundant protocol support Extensive Management * Wire-speed full RMON/RMON2 * SNMP manageable * SSH * RADIUS * TACACS+ * RS-232 (out-of-band management) * Command Line Interface (CLI) Interfaces 10/100 Base-TX 100 Base-FX 1000 Base-SX 1000 Base-LX 1000 Base-TX 1000 Base-LH (70Km) T1/E1 T3/E3 ATM-OC-3c Up to 4,096 VLANs Up to 256,000 routes Up to 20,000 security/access control filters Up to 512,000 Layer 4 application flows Up to 256,000 Layer 2 MAC addresses RS 1000: 12 Gbps non-blocking switching fabric RS 1000: 4.6 million packets per second routing throughput RS 3000: 20 Gbps non-blocking switching fabric RS 3000: 9.5 million packets per second routing throughput MTBF (predicted) > 200,000 hours Physical Dimensions: 3.25" H x 17" W x 18.5" D (8.25 cm x 43.2 cm x 47 cm) Weight: 20 lbs. (9.1 kg) Environmental Specifications Operating Temp: +0º to +40ºC (32º to 104ºF) Non-operating Temp: -40º to +70ºC (-40º to 158ºF) Operating Relative 10% to 90% (non-condensing) Humidity: Non-operating 5% to 95% maximum Relative Humidity: (non-condensing) Altitude, Operating 10,000 ft (3,000 m) maximum and Non-operating: Shock and Vibration:GR63 Power Requirements AC Input current: 3.0 A - 1.5 A AC Input voltage: 100 to 240 VAC AC Frequency: 50 to 60 Hz DC Input current: 8.0 A DC Input voltage: -48 to -60 VAC Agency Standards and Specifications Safety: Certified UL1950, CSA C22.2 No. 950, EN60950, IEC950, and 72/73/EEC Electromagnetic Compliant with the requirements of compatibility: FCC Part 15, CSA C108.8, EN55022, VCCI, EN50082-1, and 89/336/EEC Standards Supported IETF Standards Support RFC No. Title RFC 768 UDP RFC 783 TFTPv2 RFC 791 IP RFC 792 ICMP RFC 793 TCP RFC 826 ARP RFC 854 Telnet RFC 951 BootP RFC 1058 RIP v1 RFC 1075 DVMRP RFC 1112 Host Extensions for IP Multicasting RFC 1157 SNMPv1 RFC 1195 Use of OSI IS-IS for Routing in TCP/IP and Dual Environments RFC 1245 OSPF Protocol Analysis RFC 1246 Experience with the OSPF Protocol RFC 1256 ICMP Router Discover Message RFC 1265 BGP Protocol Analysis RFC 1266 Experience with the BGP Protocol RFC 1267 BGP-3 RFC 1269 Definitions of Managed Objects for BGP-3 RFC 1332 PPP IPCP RFC 1349 Type of Service in the Internet Protocol Suite RFC 1397 Default Route Advertisement in BGP-2 and BGP-3 RFC 1403 BGP OSPF Interaction RFC 1519 CIDR: an Address Assignment and Aggregation Strategy RFC 1542 Clarifications and Extensions for the Bootstrap Protocol RFC 1552 PPP IPXCP RFC 1570 PPP LCP Extensions RFC 1586 Guidelines for Running OSPF Over Frame Relay Networks RFC 1587 OSPF NSSA Option RFC 1631 IP NAT RFC 1638 PPP BCP RFC 1657 Definitions of Managed Objects for BGP-4 using SMIv2 RFC 1661 PPP RFC 1662 PPP in HDLC-like Framing RFC 1745 BGP-4/IDRP for IP and OSPF Interaction RFC 1765 OSPF Database Overflow RFC 1771 BGP-4 RFC 1772 Application of BGP in the Internet RFC 1773 Experience with the BGP-4 Protocol RFC 1774 BGP-4 Protocol Analysis RFC 1793 Extending OSPF to Support Demand Circuits RFC 1812 Router Requirements RFC 1918 Address Allocation for Private Internet Space RFC 1923 RIPv1 Applicability Statement for Historic Status RFC 1930 Guidelines for creation, selection, and registration of an AS RFC 1966 BGP Route Reflection Alternative to full mesh IBGP RFC 1990 PPP MLP RFC 1997 BGP Communities Attribute RFC 1998 BGP Community Attribute in Multi-home Routing RFC 2082 RIP-2 MD5 Authentication RFC 2131 DHCP RFC 2225 Classical IP and ARP over ATM RFC 2236 Internet Group Management Protocol, Version 2 RFC 2270 Using a Dedicated AS for Sites Homed to a Single Provider RFC 2328 OSPFv2 RFC 2329 OSPF Standardization Report RFC 2236 IGMP-2 RFC 2338 VRRP RFC 2362 PIM-SM RFC 2370 OSPF Opaque LSA Option RFC 2385 Protection of BGP Sessions via the TCP MD5 Signature Option RFC 2390 Inverse Address Resolution Protocol RFC 2391 LSNAT Load Sharing using IP Network Address Translation RFC 2427 Multi-protocol Interconnect over Frame Relay RFC 2439 BGP Flap Damping RFC 2547 BGP/MPLS VPNs RFC 2453 RIPv2 RFC 2519 A Framework for Inter-Domain Route Aggregation RFC 2570 Introduction to Version 3 of the Internet-standard Network Management Framework RFC 2571 An Architecture for Describing SNMP Management Frameworks RFC 2572 Message Processing and Dispatching for the Simple Network Management Protocol (SNMP) RFC 2573 SNMP Applications RFC 2574 User-based Security Model (USM) for version 3 of the Simple Network Management Protocol (SNMPv3) RFC 2575 View-based Access Control Model (VACM) for the Simple Network Management Protocol (SNMP) RFC 2576 Coexistence between Version 1, Version 2, and Version 3 of the Internet-standard Network Management Framework RFC 2578 Structure of Management Information Version 2 (SMIv2) RFC 2579 Textual Conventions for SMIv2 RFC 2580 Conformance Statements for SMIv2 RFC 2615 PPP over SONET/SDH RFC 2684 Multi-protocol Encapsulation over ATM Adaptation Layer 5 RFC 2702 Requirements for Traffic Engineering over MPLS RFC 2763 Dynamic Hostname Exchange Mechanism for IS-IS RFC 2796 BGP Route Reflection Alternative to full mesh IBGP RFC 2842 Capabilities Advertisement with BGP-4 RFC 2858 Multi-protocol Extensions for BGP-4 RFC 2865 Remote Authentication Dial In User Service (RADIUS) RFC 2866 RADIUS Accounting RFC 2918 Route Refresh Capability for BGP-4 RFC 2925 Definitions of Managed Objects for Remote Ping, Traceroute, and Lookup Operations RFC 2963 Dynamic Hostname Exchange Mechanism for IS-IS RFC 2966 Domain-wide Prefix Distribution with Two-Level IS-IS RFC 2973 IS-IS Mesh Groups RFC 3031 Multi-protocol Label Switching Architecture RFC 3032 MPLS Label Stack Encoding RFC 3036 LDP Specification RFC 3065 Autonomous System Confederations for BGP RFC 3137 OSPF Stub Router Advertisement RFC 3209 RSVP-TE Extensions to RSVP for LSP Tunnels RFC 3210 Applicability Statement for Extensions to RSVP for LSP Tunnels IETF Standards MIB Support RFC No. Title RFC 1471 PPP-LCP-MIB RFC 1472 PPP-Sec-MIB RFC 1473 PPP-IP-NCP-MIB RFC 1474 PPP-Bridge-NCP-MIB RFC 1493 Bridge-MIB RFC 1657 BGP4 using SMIv2-MIB RFC 1595 SONET/SDH Interface Type-MIB RFC 1695 ATM-MIB RFC 1757 RMON-MIB RFC 1724 RIPv2-MIB RFC 1850 OSPFv2-MIB RFC 1907 SNMPv2-MIB RFC 2011 IP-MIB RFC 2012 UDP-MIB RFC 2013 TCP-MIB RFC 2021 RMON2 using SMIv2-MIB RFC 2096 IP-Forward-MIB RFC 2115 Frame-Relay-MIB RFC 2233 IF using SMIv2-MIB RFC 2358 EtherLike-MIB RFC 2495 DS1, E1, DS2, E2 Interface Types-MIB RFC 2496 DS3/E3-MIB RFC 2618 Radius-Auth-Client-MIB RFC 2668 IEEE 802.3 Medium Attachment Units (MAUs)-MIB RFC 2674 P-Bridge-MIB, Q-Bridge-MIB RFC 2787 VRRP-MIB Standards and Protocols IP routing: RIPv1/v2, OSPF, BGP-4, IS-IS Multicast support: IGMP, DVMRP, PIM-DM, PIM-SM QoS: Application level, RSVP IEEE 802.1D IEEE 802.1p IEEE 802.1Q IEEE 802.1x IEEE 802.3 IEEE 802.3ad IEEE 802.3u IEEE 802.3x IEEE 802.3z Alexander Hagen Etheric Networks Incorporated, A California Corporation 527 Sixth Street No 371261 Montara CA 94037 Main Line: (650)-728-3375 Direct Line: (650) 728-3086 Cell: (650) 740-0650 (Does not work at our office in Montara) Home: (Emgcy or weekends) 650-728-5820 fax: (650) 240-1750 http://www.etheric.net -----Original Message----- From: william@elan.net [mailto:william@elan.net] Sent: Saturday, February 07, 2004 5:19 AM To: Alexander Hagen Subject: Re: Cisco Router best for full BGP on a sub 5K bidget 7500 7200 or other vendor ? 7500 is your best option indeed, I'm using several of these and have close to 300Mb passing through at max, primarily ethernet, but also have serial and ATM interfaces; multiple BGP feeds with full table and quite complex access lists - and its all WORKING! One thing to remember is that while 7500 line was started long ago, there have been new router cards and VIP cards released. So if you have 7500 with RSP4 or RSP8 and use VIP2-50 with newear PA modules, you're really not in 1995 any more... For VOIP you'll need different routers but I don't think you were talking about using your core router to provide voip handoffs. Traffic accounting is working fine with 7500 and external unix system that actually does it though SNMP. P.S. Where is Montara located? I see familar 650 area code and I though I knew all the cities nearby, but definetly never been to Montara... On Sat, 7 Feb 2004, Alexander Hagen wrote:
I have been looking for a sub 5K router on the used market to support around 30-50 megs peak traffic.
I have found the 7507/7513 but these things appear to have been manufactured in 1995 !
Then there is the 7206 and the 7206 VXR - I guess the 7206 itself is just as old as the 7507 and 7513 and the same price at the least - perhaps because of its form factor.
The 7206 VXR makes me feel a little better - as it was manufactured in 1999?
We are looking at a pure Ethernet environment - but with the desire to support a lot of value added services - such as IPSEC, VoIP, traffic accounting. Cisco's have traditionally been good at PRI and T-1 and
T-3
type interfaces - which we don't really need -which leads me to think Foundry might be an option.
Juniper appears to be at least 7,000.00 - and I am worried about support - based on other articles I have seen.
So the question is would a layer 3 switch be a good idea with a lot of memory - for example the Cat 6509 ?
Perhaps foundry BigIron with Jetware ?
Please give me your thoughts - it is hard to believe that the 7507 and 7513 are my best options....
Alexander Hagen Etheric Networks Incorporated, A California Corporation 527 Sixth Street No 371261 Montara CA 94037 Main Line: (650)-728-3375 Direct Line: (650) 728-3086 Cell: (650) 740-0650 (Does not work at our office in Montara) Home: (Emgcy or weekends) 650-728-5820 fax: (650) 240-1750 http://www.etheric.net
On Sun, 8 Feb 2004, Alexander Hagen wrote:
Now why is the CX-FEIP-2TX so much cheaper than the PA-2FE-TX ?????
I can't say why cisco charges so much for the PA-2FE, but the CX-FEIP-2TX is cheap because it's ancient (EOL'd some time ago) and probably not capable of running both ports at line-rate anyway. Don't buy them unless you're hooking up very low traffic LANs. Your best bet is PA-FE's and enough VIP2-50's for the number of PA-FE's you need. Also, watch out for PA-2FEISL-TX's. They're also not capable of handling both interfaces at line-rate. That's why they're available for just a few hundred $. http://www.cisco.com/warp/public/cc/pd/ifaa/ifpz/prodlit/969_pp.htm ---------------------------------------------------------------------- Jon Lewis *jlewis@lewis.org*| I route Senior Network Engineer | therefore you are Atlantic Net | _________ http://www.lewis.org/~jlewis/pgp for PGP public key_________
On Sun, 8 Feb 2004, Alexander Hagen wrote:
The PA-2FE-TX is about 1600.00- better to get a second PA-FE-TX with second VIP2-50
Now why is the CX-FEIP-2TX so much cheaper than the PA-2FE-TX ?????
I believe because the CX-FEIP-2TX is a full length card. The PA-2FE-TX also isn't able to handle a full 100Mbps per port, so don't be suprised if it doesn't work well :) VIP2/50 is a much better combo.
"Tom (UnitedLayer)" <tom@unitedlayer.com> writes:
On Sun, 8 Feb 2004, Alexander Hagen wrote:
The PA-2FE-TX is about 1600.00- better to get a second PA-FE-TX with second VIP2-50
Now why is the CX-FEIP-2TX so much cheaper than the PA-2FE-TX ?????
I believe because the CX-FEIP-2TX is a full length card. The PA-2FE-TX also isn't able to handle a full 100Mbps per port, so don't be suprised if it doesn't work well :)
VIP2/50 is a much better combo.
The reason that the CX-FEIP-2TX is so inexpensive is that it is interesting mainly as a curiousity of transitional technology. A CX-FEIP-2TX is VIP1, not a VIP2 (even a 2-15 or 2-20), and is incapable of being upgraded to do distributed anything, (cef, flow, whatever). It barely does full-duplex at line rate on one port, let alone two. Its sole use, if you happen to like to keep old hardware around, is that it will work in a 7000/7010 with RP/[S]SP, (ie, not an RSP). You can use them in a 7500 (or a 7000 with an RSP7k), but why would you want to? ---Rob
I bought a Riverstone Rs-3000 for BGP with a single upstream provider. Great Deal. Now I am back to the Cisco Question. I have two options within my budget: 1) Catalyst 6006 w/ CATALYST 6000 SUPERVISOR ENGINE 1-A, 2GE, PLUS MSFC & PFC 2) CATALYST WS-X6248-RJ45, 48-PORT 10/100 FAST ETHERNET SWITCHING MODULE 3) DRAM UPGRADE to 256 on Supe Card. This system costs somewhere around 1300.00 more than a: Cisco 7505 w RSP4 256 Plus (2) VIP 2-50/128 and 3 PA-FE-TX Obviously the Catalyst is a better unit. But will it be as "burned in" and robust as the venerable 7505 ? I need to order by Monday A.M. as the router we have now - a 4840G is an extremely weird beast. Thanks Alexander Hagen Etheric Networks Incorporated, A California Corporation -----Original Message----- From: Robert E. Seastrom [mailto:rs@seastrom.com] Sent: Monday, February 09, 2004 4:59 PM To: Tom (UnitedLayer) Cc: Alexander Hagen; nanog@merit.edu Subject: Re: Cisco Router best for full BGP on a sub 5K bidget 7500 7200 or other vendor ? "Tom (UnitedLayer)" <tom@unitedlayer.com> writes:
On Sun, 8 Feb 2004, Alexander Hagen wrote:
The PA-2FE-TX is about 1600.00- better to get a second PA-FE-TX with second VIP2-50
Now why is the CX-FEIP-2TX so much cheaper than the PA-2FE-TX ?????
I believe because the CX-FEIP-2TX is a full length card. The PA-2FE-TX also isn't able to handle a full 100Mbps per port, so don't be suprised if it doesn't work well :)
VIP2/50 is a much better combo.
The reason that the CX-FEIP-2TX is so inexpensive is that it is interesting mainly as a curiousity of transitional technology. A CX-FEIP-2TX is VIP1, not a VIP2 (even a 2-15 or 2-20), and is incapable of being upgraded to do distributed anything, (cef, flow, whatever). It barely does full-duplex at line rate on one port, let alone two. Its sole use, if you happen to like to keep old hardware around, is that it will work in a 7000/7010 with RP/[S]SP, (ie, not an RSP). You can use them in a 7500 (or a 7000 with an RSP7k), but why would you want to? ---Rob
Alexander Hagen wrote:
I bought a Riverstone Rs-3000 for BGP with a single upstream provider. Great Deal.
Yeah, it might be a Great Deal (tm), but you're in for some surprises. I've seen an RS-8600 (with CM3 and 512MB on board) nearly melt under 13Mbps of Nachi, to the point that I had to set the CM failover keepalive timer to >30 seconds. We had a failover one night due to CPU exhaustion - I think the route reconvergence was actually worse than the performance of the box prior to the failover, but that's just my opinion. I've also seen the same unit nearly melt under 9Mbps of SQL Slammer - the CPU was so busy setting up flows that it was unable to rate limit this customer to 1Mbps or anywhere close. On a box with a 64Gbps backplane, I'm certainly not impressed, though I guess if I just used it as a switch it'd be happy. Plus, you'll have a whole new learning curve for BGP. Wanna use a route map outbound? Expect it to reference the whole RIB, not just the BGP routes you've learned, redistributed, or flagged locally for announcement. Wanna edit a route map? sh run groups similar commands together, but sorts them in the order they were input, regardless of route map name and/or sequence number. The only strong point that jumps out is the ability to comment - I just wrote "ALL" of the route maps I thought I'd need and commented the maintenance and emergency segments before deploying it. And I guess cascading route maps on BGP sessions is a benefit, at least to overcome the CLI sorting. pt
On Sun, 25 Apr 2004, Alexander Hagen wrote:
1) Catalyst 6006 w/ CATALYST 6000 SUPERVISOR ENGINE 1-A, 2GE, PLUS MSFC & PFC
Yuck. Unless you have very few flows you do not want to use MSFC1/PFC1. This platform would be good for a file server with few but highspeed flows.
This system costs somewhere around 1300.00 more than a: Cisco 7505 w RSP4 256 Plus (2) VIP 2-50/128 and 3 PA-FE-TX
Obviously the Catalyst is a better unit. But will it be as "burned in" and robust as the venerable 7505 ?
The 7505 will probably handle lots of flows massively better than the SUP1A. -- Mikael Abrahamsson email: swmike@swm.pp.se
Yes. I've been looking at it and a 7505 with a 3550 behind it seems the way to go for our type of operation. As a cost cutting alternative - has anyone played with the 2900 XL series using sub interfaces to turn them into virtual router ports ? or vlan groups ? Is it better to just buy a 3550 ? Alexander Hagen Etheric Networks Incorporated, A California Corporation 527 Sixth Street No 371261 Montara CA 94037 Main Line: (650)-728-3375 Direct Line: (650) 728-3086 Cell: (650) 740-0650 (Does not work at our office in Montara) Home: (Emgcy or weekends) 650-728-5820 fax: (650) 240-1750 http://www.etheric.net -----Original Message----- From: Mikael Abrahamsson [mailto:swmike@swm.pp.se] Sent: Sunday, April 25, 2004 5:09 AM To: Alexander Hagen Cc: 'Robert E. Seastrom'; 'Tom (UnitedLayer)'; nanog@merit.edu Subject: RE: Cisco Router best for full BGP on a sub 5K bidget 7500 7200 or other vendor ? On Sun, 25 Apr 2004, Alexander Hagen wrote:
1) Catalyst 6006 w/ CATALYST 6000 SUPERVISOR ENGINE 1-A, 2GE, PLUS MSFC & PFC
Yuck. Unless you have very few flows you do not want to use MSFC1/PFC1. This platform would be good for a file server with few but highspeed flows.
This system costs somewhere around 1300.00 more than a: Cisco 7505 w RSP4 256 Plus (2) VIP 2-50/128 and 3 PA-FE-TX
Obviously the Catalyst is a better unit. But will it be as "burned in" and robust as the venerable 7505 ?
The 7505 will probably handle lots of flows massively better than the SUP1A. -- Mikael Abrahamsson email: swmike@swm.pp.se
Hmm; why do you want to keep BGP on a switch instead of installing separate router? Do you have a very wide uplink (uplinks)? // I do not object an idea.
Yes. I've been looking at it and a 7505 with a 3550 behind it seems the way to go for our type of operation.
As a cost cutting alternative - has anyone played with the 2900 XL series using sub interfaces to turn them into virtual router ports ? or vlan groups ? Is it better to just buy a 3550 ?
Alexander Hagen Etheric Networks Incorporated, A California Corporation 527 Sixth Street No 371261 Montara CA 94037 Main Line: (650)-728-3375 Direct Line: (650) 728-3086 Cell: (650) 740-0650 (Does not work at our office in Montara) Home: (Emgcy or weekends) 650-728-5820 fax: (650) 240-1750 http://www.etheric.net
-----Original Message----- From: Mikael Abrahamsson [mailto:swmike@swm.pp.se] Sent: Sunday, April 25, 2004 5:09 AM To: Alexander Hagen Cc: 'Robert E. Seastrom'; 'Tom (UnitedLayer)'; nanog@merit.edu Subject: RE: Cisco Router best for full BGP on a sub 5K bidget 7500 7200 or other vendor ?
On Sun, 25 Apr 2004, Alexander Hagen wrote:
1) Catalyst 6006 w/ CATALYST 6000 SUPERVISOR ENGINE 1-A, 2GE, PLUS MSFC & PFC
Yuck. Unless you have very few flows you do not want to use MSFC1/PFC1.
This platform would be good for a file server with few but highspeed flows.
This system costs somewhere around 1300.00 more than a: Cisco 7505 w RSP4 256 Plus (2) VIP 2-50/128 and 3 PA-FE-TX
Obviously the Catalyst is a better unit. But will it be as "burned in" and robust as the venerable 7505 ?
The 7505 will probably handle lots of flows massively better than the SUP1A.
-- Mikael Abrahamsson email: swmike@swm.pp.se
hmm; why do you keep questioning people how to run their own networks? step 1. know the limits of your devices step 2. know the limits and purpose of each routing protocols step 3. test test test step 4. does it work for you? if yes: do it, if no: don't it may be entirely approprirate to have a L3 switch run bgp just for internal / small number of prefixes, or for other reasons, depends on the hardware limits and configuration of your topology. getting back to the topic, 2950 switches can create dot1q vlan tags, so can 3500. so can 2900XL but never tried myself.. -J On Sun, Apr 25, 2004 at 10:31:25PM -0700, Alexei Roudnev wrote:
Hmm; why do you want to keep BGP on a switch instead of installing separate router? Do you have a very wide uplink (uplinks)?
// I do not object an idea.
Yes. I've been looking at it and a 7505 with a 3550 behind it seems the way to go for our type of operation.
As a cost cutting alternative - has anyone played with the 2900 XL series using sub interfaces to turn them into virtual router ports ? or vlan groups ? Is it better to just buy a 3550 ?
Alexander Hagen Etheric Networks Incorporated, A California Corporation 527 Sixth Street No 371261 Montara CA 94037 Main Line: (650)-728-3375 Direct Line: (650) 728-3086 Cell: (650) 740-0650 (Does not work at our office in Montara) Home: (Emgcy or weekends) 650-728-5820 fax: (650) 240-1750 http://www.etheric.net
-----Original Message----- From: Mikael Abrahamsson [mailto:swmike@swm.pp.se] Sent: Sunday, April 25, 2004 5:09 AM To: Alexander Hagen Cc: 'Robert E. Seastrom'; 'Tom (UnitedLayer)'; nanog@merit.edu Subject: RE: Cisco Router best for full BGP on a sub 5K bidget 7500 7200 or other vendor ?
On Sun, 25 Apr 2004, Alexander Hagen wrote:
1) Catalyst 6006 w/ CATALYST 6000 SUPERVISOR ENGINE 1-A, 2GE, PLUS MSFC & PFC
Yuck. Unless you have very few flows you do not want to use MSFC1/PFC1.
This platform would be good for a file server with few but highspeed flows.
This system costs somewhere around 1300.00 more than a: Cisco 7505 w RSP4 256 Plus (2) VIP 2-50/128 and 3 PA-FE-TX
Obviously the Catalyst is a better unit. But will it be as "burned in" and robust as the venerable 7505 ?
The 7505 will probably handle lots of flows massively better than the SUP1A.
-- Mikael Abrahamsson email: swmike@swm.pp.se
-- James Jun TowardEX Technologies, Inc. Technical Lead Network Design, Consulting, IT Outsourcing james@towardex.com Boston-based Colocation & Bandwidth Services cell: 1(978)-394-2867 web: http://www.towardex.com , noc: www.twdx.net
The MSFC1 is a useless thing, and it is (more or less) impossible to get a full BGP route view. S1A-MSFC2 is minimum. On Sun, 25 Apr 2004, Alexander Hagen wrote:
I bought a Riverstone Rs-3000 for BGP with a single upstream provider. Great Deal.
Now I am back to the Cisco Question.
I have two options within my budget:
1) Catalyst 6006 w/ CATALYST 6000 SUPERVISOR ENGINE 1-A, 2GE, PLUS MSFC & PFC 2) CATALYST WS-X6248-RJ45, 48-PORT 10/100 FAST ETHERNET SWITCHING MODULE 3) DRAM UPGRADE to 256 on Supe Card.
Reading this thread, it looks to me like everybody's discussing the "one true router" for doing BGP, without regard to any other requirements that may exist in this situation. Being able to take a full BGP table in a Cisco is simply a matter of having enough memory. We're using 1760s as the current generation of PCH route collectors, and they're working quite nicely. For anybody who only wants to route a few Mb/s of traffic with a fairly simple network topology, just about anything with enough interfaces and at least 192 MB of RAM should work. As the network topology gets more complex or the traffic volumes increase, it becomes a matter of finding the router that fits the topology and can handle the traffic volume, while BGP capability becomes a minor concern. First, figure out whether you want a router or a switch: Are you doing anything that requires a router to isolate different switch networks (hooking 20 or 30 or more switches together can cause some intersting issues...)? Do you have the sorts of flows that make a switch that routes advantageous? Does the ability to assign ports to lots of arbitrary VLAN interfaces without having to trunk the router to an external switch appeal to you? Then figure out how much traffic you want the router to be able to handle. Average load probably isn't nearly as much of a concern as peak load. It's also worth considering what sorts of traffic surges or DOS attacks you want to be able to survive, since those may push your traffic volumes well above your usual peaks. At that point, there's still a bunch of research to do, in terms of what meets your requirements and what's available within your budget, but it makes it much easier to say whether a given platform that's available for the right price will work. -Steve On Sun, 25 Apr 2004, Alexander Hagen wrote:
I bought a Riverstone Rs-3000 for BGP with a single upstream provider. Great Deal.
Now I am back to the Cisco Question.
I have two options within my budget:
1) Catalyst 6006 w/ CATALYST 6000 SUPERVISOR ENGINE 1-A, 2GE, PLUS MSFC & PFC 2) CATALYST WS-X6248-RJ45, 48-PORT 10/100 FAST ETHERNET SWITCHING MODULE 3) DRAM UPGRADE to 256 on Supe Card.
This system costs somewhere around 1300.00 more than a: Cisco 7505 w RSP4 256 Plus (2) VIP 2-50/128 and 3 PA-FE-TX
Obviously the Catalyst is a better unit. But will it be as "burned in" and robust as the venerable 7505 ?
I need to order by Monday A.M. as the router we have now - a 4840G is an extremely weird beast.
Thanks
Alexander Hagen Etheric Networks Incorporated, A California Corporation
-----Original Message----- From: Robert E. Seastrom [mailto:rs@seastrom.com] Sent: Monday, February 09, 2004 4:59 PM To: Tom (UnitedLayer) Cc: Alexander Hagen; nanog@merit.edu Subject: Re: Cisco Router best for full BGP on a sub 5K bidget 7500 7200 or other vendor ?
"Tom (UnitedLayer)" <tom@unitedlayer.com> writes:
On Sun, 8 Feb 2004, Alexander Hagen wrote:
The PA-2FE-TX is about 1600.00- better to get a second PA-FE-TX with second VIP2-50
Now why is the CX-FEIP-2TX so much cheaper than the PA-2FE-TX ?????
I believe because the CX-FEIP-2TX is a full length card. The PA-2FE-TX also isn't able to handle a full 100Mbps per port, so don't be suprised if it doesn't work well :)
VIP2/50 is a much better combo.
The reason that the CX-FEIP-2TX is so inexpensive is that it is interesting mainly as a curiousity of transitional technology.
A CX-FEIP-2TX is VIP1, not a VIP2 (even a 2-15 or 2-20), and is incapable of being upgraded to do distributed anything, (cef, flow, whatever). It barely does full-duplex at line rate on one port, let alone two.
Its sole use, if you happen to like to keep old hardware around, is that it will work in a 7000/7010 with RP/[S]SP, (ie, not an RSP). You can use them in a 7500 (or a 7000 with an RSP7k), but why would you want to?
---Rob
Steve; For me this is a gem of insight. Thanks Alexander Hagen Etheric Networks Incorporated, A California Corporation 527 Sixth Street No 371261 Montara CA 94037 Main Line: (650)-728-3375 Direct Line: (650) 728-3086 Cell: (650) 740-0650 (Does not work at our office in Montara) Home: (Emgcy or weekends) 650-728-5820 fax: (650) 240-1750 http://www.etheric.net -----Original Message----- From: Steve Gibbard [mailto:scg@gibbard.org] Sent: Monday, April 26, 2004 12:43 PM To: Alexander Hagen Cc: nanog@merit.edu Subject: RE: Cisco Router best for full BGP on a sub 5K bidget 7500 7200 or other vendor ? Reading this thread, it looks to me like everybody's discussing the "one true router" for doing BGP, without regard to any other requirements that may exist in this situation. Being able to take a full BGP table in a Cisco is simply a matter of having enough memory. We're using 1760s as the current generation of PCH route collectors, and they're working quite nicely. For anybody who only wants to route a few Mb/s of traffic with a fairly simple network topology, just about anything with enough interfaces and at least 192 MB of RAM should work. As the network topology gets more complex or the traffic volumes increase, it becomes a matter of finding the router that fits the topology and can handle the traffic volume, while BGP capability becomes a minor concern. First, figure out whether you want a router or a switch: Are you doing anything that requires a router to isolate different switch networks (hooking 20 or 30 or more switches together can cause some intersting issues...)? Do you have the sorts of flows that make a switch that routes advantageous? Does the ability to assign ports to lots of arbitrary VLAN interfaces without having to trunk the router to an external switch appeal to you? Then figure out how much traffic you want the router to be able to handle. Average load probably isn't nearly as much of a concern as peak load. It's also worth considering what sorts of traffic surges or DOS attacks you want to be able to survive, since those may push your traffic volumes well above your usual peaks. At that point, there's still a bunch of research to do, in terms of what meets your requirements and what's available within your budget, but it makes it much easier to say whether a given platform that's available for the right price will work. -Steve On Sun, 25 Apr 2004, Alexander Hagen wrote:
I bought a Riverstone Rs-3000 for BGP with a single upstream provider. Great Deal.
Now I am back to the Cisco Question.
I have two options within my budget:
1) Catalyst 6006 w/ CATALYST 6000 SUPERVISOR ENGINE 1-A, 2GE, PLUS
MSFC
& PFC 2) CATALYST WS-X6248-RJ45, 48-PORT 10/100 FAST ETHERNET SWITCHING MODULE 3) DRAM UPGRADE to 256 on Supe Card.
This system costs somewhere around 1300.00 more than a: Cisco 7505 w RSP4 256 Plus (2) VIP 2-50/128 and 3 PA-FE-TX
Obviously the Catalyst is a better unit. But will it be as "burned in" and robust as the venerable 7505 ?
I need to order by Monday A.M. as the router we have now - a 4840G is an extremely weird beast.
Thanks
Alexander Hagen Etheric Networks Incorporated, A California Corporation
-----Original Message----- From: Robert E. Seastrom [mailto:rs@seastrom.com] Sent: Monday, February 09, 2004 4:59 PM To: Tom (UnitedLayer) Cc: Alexander Hagen; nanog@merit.edu Subject: Re: Cisco Router best for full BGP on a sub 5K bidget 7500 7200 or other vendor ?
"Tom (UnitedLayer)" <tom@unitedlayer.com> writes:
On Sun, 8 Feb 2004, Alexander Hagen wrote:
The PA-2FE-TX is about 1600.00- better to get a second PA-FE-TX with second VIP2-50
Now why is the CX-FEIP-2TX so much cheaper than the PA-2FE-TX ?????
I believe because the CX-FEIP-2TX is a full length card. The PA-2FE-TX also isn't able to handle a full 100Mbps per port, so don't be suprised if it doesn't work well :)
VIP2/50 is a much better combo.
The reason that the CX-FEIP-2TX is so inexpensive is that it is interesting mainly as a curiousity of transitional technology.
A CX-FEIP-2TX is VIP1, not a VIP2 (even a 2-15 or 2-20), and is incapable of being upgraded to do distributed anything, (cef, flow, whatever). It barely does full-duplex at line rate on one port, let alone two.
Its sole use, if you happen to like to keep old hardware around, is that it will work in a 7000/7010 with RP/[S]SP, (ie, not an RSP). You can use them in a 7500 (or a 7000 with an RSP7k), but why would you want to?
---Rob
participants (10)
-
Alex Rubenstein -
Alexander Hagen -
Alexei Roudnev -
James -
jlewis＠lewis.org -
Mikael Abrahamsson -
Pete Templin -
Robert E. Seastrom -
Steve Gibbard -
Tom (UnitedLayer)