Cisco 7600 (7609) as a core BGP router.
I have an opportuniy to put two 7609s into the core of my network. Currently we have 3 upstream providers, taking full BGP routes. (2 in one router and one in another). We have 17 BGP peers/customers (peering to each router), and adding about one new BGP peer every 2-3 months. It is a modest network by most standards. We are running OSPF and BGP between the existing routers. Not rocket science, nothing special (no MPLS, no VRF etc), very simple network. Does anyone have any recommendations on the 7600's as a core BGP router? Good or bad? Have they been a stable platform in a core/BGP environment? -- Jim Wininger
We run the 6509-e platform in this role with Sup720-3bxl's.. and they have been rock solid. Peter Kranz Founder/CEO - Unwired Ltd www.UnwiredLtd.com Desk: 510-868-1614 x100 Mobile: 510-207-0000 pkranz@unwiredltd.com -----Original Message----- From: Jim Wininger [mailto:jwininger@indianafiber.net] Sent: Friday, July 17, 2009 2:23 PM To: nanog@nanog.org Subject: Cisco 7600 (7609) as a core BGP router. I have an opportuniy to put two 7609s into the core of my network. Currently we have 3 upstream providers, taking full BGP routes. (2 in one router and one in another). We have 17 BGP peers/customers (peering to each router), and adding about one new BGP peer every 2-3 months. It is a modest network by most standards. We are running OSPF and BGP between the existing routers. Not rocket science, nothing special (no MPLS, no VRF etc), very simple network. Does anyone have any recommendations on the 7600's as a core BGP router? Good or bad? Have they been a stable platform in a core/BGP environment? -- Jim Wininger
We use the 7600 platform as a Customer Border device. It attaches directly to our core, and directly to our customers. This has been a solid platform. Before this we used to use the 7600 as a load balancer for a DNS cluster. Worked fairly well. We use the 6500 series for our main network infrastructure and to border/core/dist layers and they are rock solid, as long as you stay away from the SXH images. These are a bit buggy and we have had routers crash due to that image. We have deployed a few new devices with the SXI and are very happy with them currently. Jim Wininger wrote:
I have an opportuniy to put two 7609s into the core of my network.
Currently we have 3 upstream providers, taking full BGP routes. (2 in one router and one in another). We have 17 BGP peers/customers (peering to each router), and adding about one new BGP peer every 2-3 months. It is a modest network by most standards. We are running OSPF and BGP between the existing routers.
Not rocket science, nothing special (no MPLS, no VRF etc), very simple network.
Does anyone have any recommendations on the 7600's as a core BGP router? Good or bad? Have they been a stable platform in a core/BGP environment?
-- Steve King Network Engineer - Liquid Web, Inc. Cisco Certified Network Associate CompTIA Linux+ Certified Professional CompTIA A+ Certified Professional
We don't run very much Cisco gear (none of their larger, hardware stuff) but I have a couple questions for the Cisco gurus out there... According to this page: http://www.cisco.com/en/US/prod/collateral/switches/ps5718/ps708/product_dat... The Cisco WS-SUP720-3BXL can hold "1,000,000 (IPv4); 500,000 (IPv6)" route entries. 1) Does that mean a) The card can hold 1m IPv4 routes --OR-- 500K IPv6 routes or b) 1m IPv4 routes --AND-- 500K IPv6 routes? 2) I'm assuming MPLS cuts into the number somewhere but could anyone explain it briefly? 3) Do ACLs use some of these resources or do they get their own slice of memory? That page also reports "up to 40 Gbps per slot of switching capacity; 720 Gbps aggregate bandwidth". Is the 40Gbps per slot an aggregate or full-duplex value? Thanks for helping out a Cisco n00b! -- Brad Fleming On Jul 17, 2009, at 4:30 PM, Steven King wrote:
We use the 7600 platform as a Customer Border device. It attaches directly to our core, and directly to our customers. This has been a solid platform. Before this we used to use the 7600 as a load balancer for a DNS cluster. Worked fairly well. We use the 6500 series for our main network infrastructure and to border/core/dist layers and they are rock solid, as long as you stay away from the SXH images. These are a bit buggy and we have had routers crash due to that image. We have deployed a few new devices with the SXI and are very happy with them currently.
Jim Wininger wrote:
I have an opportuniy to put two 7609s into the core of my network.
Currently we have 3 upstream providers, taking full BGP routes. (2 in one router and one in another). We have 17 BGP peers/customers (peering to each router), and adding about one new BGP peer every 2-3 months. It is a modest network by most standards. We are running OSPF and BGP between the existing routers.
Not rocket science, nothing special (no MPLS, no VRF etc), very simple network.
Does anyone have any recommendations on the 7600's as a core BGP router? Good or bad? Have they been a stable platform in a core/BGP environment?
-- Steve King
Network Engineer - Liquid Web, Inc. Cisco Certified Network Associate CompTIA Linux+ Certified Professional CompTIA A+ Certified Professional
On Fri, 17 Jul 2009, Brad Fleming wrote:
We don't run very much Cisco gear (none of their larger, hardware stuff) but I have a couple questions for the Cisco gurus out there...
According to this page: http://www.cisco.com/en/US/prod/collateral/switches/ps5718/ps708/product_dat... The Cisco WS-SUP720-3BXL can hold "1,000,000 (IPv4); 500,000 (IPv6)" route entries.
1) Does that mean a) The card can hold 1m IPv4 routes --OR-- 500K IPv6 routes or b) 1m IPv4 routes --AND-- 500K IPv6 routes?
OR. Or you can have 524288 v4 and 262144 v6 routes...or you can move the split around. I chose: L3 Forwarding Resources FIB TCAM usage: Total Used %Used 72 bits (IPv4, MPLS, EoM) 622592 289791 47% 144 bits (IP mcast, IPv6) 212992 8 1% Adjusting the split requires a reboot.
2) I'm assuming MPLS cuts into the number somewhere but could anyone explain it briefly?
I think the above actually does.
3) Do ACLs use some of these resources or do they get their own slice of memory?
Don't think so. I did a blog entry about this a while back. http://jonsblog.lewis.org/2008/02/09#sup720-20080209
That page also reports "up to 40 Gbps per slot of switching capacity; 720 Gbps aggregate bandwidth". Is the 40Gbps per slot an aggregate or full-duplex value?
AFAIK, cisco always reports these things as input+output = bandwidth. It makes the numbers more impressive. We've been using 6509s as BGP routers for years and they've generaly been rock stable. ---------------------------------------------------------------------- Jon Lewis | I route Senior Network Engineer | therefore you are Atlantic Net | _________ http://www.lewis.org/~jlewis/pgp for PGP public key_________
On Fri, Jul 17, 2009 at 06:07:26PM -0500, Brad Fleming wrote:
We don't run very much Cisco gear (none of their larger, hardware stuff) but I have a couple questions for the Cisco gurus out there...
According to this page: http://www.cisco.com/en/US/prod/collateral/switches/ps5718/ps708/product_dat... The Cisco WS-SUP720-3BXL can hold "1,000,000 (IPv4); 500,000 (IPv6)" route entries.
1) Does that mean a) The card can hold 1m IPv4 routes --OR-- 500K IPv6 routes or b) 1m IPv4 routes --AND-- 500K IPv6 routes? 2) I'm assuming MPLS cuts into the number somewhere but could anyone explain it briefly? 3) Do ACLs use some of these resources or do they get their own slice of memory?
The total size of the TCAM for forwardinging lookups is 9MB. IPv4 and MPLS routes consume 72 bits per entry, IPv6 and multicast routes consume 144 bits per entry. If you use all IPv4/MPLS, you get 1048576 entries. If you use all IPv6/multicast routes, you get 524288 entries. Your actual usage will probably be somewhere in between. ACLs and Netflow are different TCAM resources. Also, you have to pre-"partition" the TCAM capacity and reboot in order for the changes to take effect, so you'll need to decide your profile beforehand. The command to do that is "mls cef maximum-routes". You can also check your current utilization of forwarding tcam and acl/qos tcam with "show platform hardware capacity" on anything SXF or newer. -- Richard A Steenbergen <ras@e-gerbil.net> http://www.e-gerbil.net/ras GPG Key ID: 0xF8B12CBC (7535 7F59 8204 ED1F CC1C 53AF 4C41 5ECA F8B1 2CBC)
From: Brad Fleming <bdfleming@kanren.net> Date: Fri, 17 Jul 2009 18:07:26 -0500
We don't run very much Cisco gear (none of their larger, hardware stuff) but I have a couple questions for the Cisco gurus out there...
According to this page: http://www.cisco.com/en/US/prod/collateral/switches/ps5718/ps708/product_dat... The Cisco WS-SUP720-3BXL can hold "1,000,000 (IPv4); 500,000 (IPv6)" route entries.
1) Does that mean a) The card can hold 1m IPv4 routes --OR-- 500K IPv6 routes or b) 1m IPv4 routes --AND-- 500K IPv6 routes?
It means that it will hole 1M IPv4 OR 500K IPv6. It means that IPv6 addresses take twice the TCAM that IPv4 routes do, so that for every IPv6 route in TCAM, you can load two fewer IPv4 routes. Worse, TCAM is partitioned with a dedicated portion for IPv4 addresses and another for IPv6 + multicast. To adjust the partitioning, you must reload the supervisor.
2) I'm assuming MPLS cuts into the number somewhere but could anyone explain it briefly?
Not really. The TCAM holds routes and the place to send packets destined for them. Since all TCAM is loaded based on flows and treated very much like MPLS, just without an external tag, the TCAM space should not be impacted. (I am NOT positive about this one, though.)
3) Do ACLs use some of these resources or do they get their own slice of memory?
Nope. They are in a different TCAM in the Sup720. They have zero impact.
That page also reports "up to 40 Gbps per slot of switching capacity; 720 Gbps aggregate bandwidth". Is the 40Gbps per slot an aggregate or full-duplex value?
I don't entirely understand the phrasing of the question, but I think you mean, do they double the numbers as router marketeers are wont to do by counting traffic in both directions? No. That is why you can drive all 4 ports of the 4x10GE card to almost the full 10G at the same time in both directions. Not quite, though. Cisco "steals" a little bandwidth on each cord for some internal signaling, so each pair of the 10GE ports is limited to about 19 GB. (I don't recall the exact number.) So they are just slightly oversubscribed. The backplane is actually a pair of 20 Gbps backplanes with the ports divided between them. On the 4x10G cards, the two top ports are on one backplane and the two bottom ones are on the other. They each have access to a full 20Gbps path less the "stolen" bandwidth. -- R. Kevin Oberman, Network Engineer Energy Sciences Network (ESnet) Ernest O. Lawrence Berkeley National Laboratory (Berkeley Lab) E-mail: oberman@es.net Phone: +1 510 486-8634 Key fingerprint:059B 2DDF 031C 9BA3 14A4 EADA 927D EBB3 987B 3751
On Fri, Jul 17, 2009 at 06:07:26PM -0500, Brad Fleming wrote:
That page also reports "up to 40 Gbps per slot of switching capacity; 720 Gbps aggregate bandwidth". Is the 40Gbps per slot an aggregate or full-duplex value?
Woops, I missed this question. On CEF720 (aka the cards numbered 67xx that claim to be 40G/slot) what you actually have are two 20G fabric channels to each slot. The fabric channels are full duplex, so you could have 40G per slot coming in and out of the same card, and Cisco double-counts the packets (in and out) to get 9 fabric slots * 40G * 2 = 720. On 6704 cards, ports 1 and 2 are in one fabric channel, ports 3 and 4 are in another. On 6748 cards, even ports are in one channel and odd ports are in another. On 6724 cards, there is only one 20G fabric channel. Of course there are literally a list of caveats a mile long to explain why you won't actually get anywhere near 720G out of the box, but the big one you want to be careful of is sending traffic within the same fabric channel (i.e. from port 1 to port 2 on a 6704). This will cause a bottleneck at around 7-8G, with lots of input or output drops. You can also view the fabric utilization with "show platform hardware capacity fabric", though you should keep in mind that these counters are about as accurate as the others on this platform (wild variations at best). -- Richard A Steenbergen <ras@e-gerbil.net> http://www.e-gerbil.net/ras GPG Key ID: 0xF8B12CBC (7535 7F59 8204 ED1F CC1C 53AF 4C41 5ECA F8B1 2CBC)
Personally I'd avoid this platform given 6+ years of trying to make it work reliably. GSR is far better platform.
On Jul 20, 2009, at 5:26 PM, Neil J. McRae wrote:
GSR is far better platform.
Concur 100%. ----------------------------------------------------------------------- Roland Dobbins <rdobbins@arbor.net> // <http://www.arbornetworks.com> Unfortunately, inefficiency scales really well. -- Kevin Lawton
On Jul 20, 2009, at 5:26 PM, Neil J. McRae wrote:
GSR is far better platform.
Concur 100%. --- I'm probably wrong, but aren't the 7600s 40Gbps per slot vs the GSR only being 10Gbps per slot? and doesn't that mean that there should (fairly soon) be a new version of the GSR coming that ups the slot width? -Drew
GSR is far better platform.
Concur 100%. ---
I'm probably wrong, but aren't the 7600s 40Gbps per slot vs the GSR only being 10Gbps per slot? and doesn't that mean that there should (fairly soon) be a new version of the GSR coming that ups the slot width?
It's called the CRS-1 :-) Steinar Haug, Nethelp consulting, sthaug@nethelp.no
.. Or the new ASR-9000 maybe? On 21-Jul-09, at 5:06 PM, sthaug@nethelp.no wrote:
GSR is far better platform.
Concur 100%. ---
I'm probably wrong, but aren't the 7600s 40Gbps per slot vs the GSR only being 10Gbps per slot? and doesn't that mean that there should (fairly soon) be a new version of the GSR coming that ups the slot width?
It's called the CRS-1 :-)
Steinar Haug, Nethelp consulting, sthaug@nethelp.no
On Tue, 21 Jul 2009, Drew Weaver wrote:
I'm probably wrong, but aren't the 7600s 40Gbps per slot vs the GSR only being 10Gbps per slot? and doesn't that mean that there should (fairly soon) be a new version of the GSR coming that ups the slot width?
The GSR is currently power and cooling constrained so it's not that easy to create new faster linecards, plus the fact that you need to invest in the 128xx fabric upgrade makes it not that much money efficient. Also expect any future linecards to be supported in XR only. -- Mikael Abrahamsson email: swmike@swm.pp.se
Agreed... we migrated away from GSR to 7600 and now looking at migrating back...;) GSR was 100% rock solid for us with PRP-2 processors.... sup720-3bxl has been good but no comparison... -----Original Message----- From: Neil J. McRae [mailto:neil@DOMINO.ORG] Sent: Monday, July 20, 2009 6:26 AM To: nanog@nanog.org Subject: RE: Cisco 7600 (7609) as a core BGP router. Personally I'd avoid this platform given 6+ years of trying to make it work reliably. GSR is far better platform. ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- "The information transmitted is intended only for the person or entity to which it is addressed and contains confidential and/or privileged material. If you received this in error, please contact the sender immediately and then destroy this transmission, including all attachments, without copying, distributing or disclosing same. Thank you."
Because of nowadays network scalability demands, Cisco is preparing ASR 14000 series to replace this one, I think. ^^ Basically ASR 14000 is downgrade version of CRS-1, but I consider it is still developing or beta product. Alex Paul Stewart wrote:
Agreed... we migrated away from GSR to 7600 and now looking at migrating back...;) GSR was 100% rock solid for us with PRP-2 processors.... sup720-3bxl has been good but no comparison...
-----Original Message----- From: Neil J. McRae [mailto:neil@DOMINO.ORG] Sent: Monday, July 20, 2009 6:26 AM To: nanog@nanog.org Subject: RE: Cisco 7600 (7609) as a core BGP router.
Personally I'd avoid this platform given 6+ years of trying to make it work reliably. GSR is far better platform.
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
"The information transmitted is intended only for the person or entity to which it is addressed and contains confidential and/or privileged material. If you received this in error, please contact the sender immediately and then destroy this transmission, including all attachments, without copying, distributing or disclosing same. Thank you."
.
On Jul 20, 2009, at 9:50 PM, Alex H. Ryu wrote:
Cisco is preparing ASR 14000 series to replace this one, I think.
It's always a good idea to check the status/availability of a given platform prior to making any plans which depend upon it. ----------------------------------------------------------------------- Roland Dobbins <rdobbins@arbor.net> // <http://www.arbornetworks.com> Unfortunately, inefficiency scales really well. -- Kevin Lawton
On Mon, 20 Jul 2009, Alex H. Ryu wrote:
Because of nowadays network scalability demands, Cisco is preparing ASR 14000 series to replace this one, I think. ^^ Basically ASR 14000 is downgrade version of CRS-1, but I consider it is still developing or beta product.
As far as I know Cisco cancelled ASR14000 platform, but the developed supervisor will be available to CRS-1 platform.... Janos Mohacsi Network Engineer, Research Associate, Head of Network Planning and Projects NIIF/HUNGARNET, HUNGARY Key 70EF9882: DEC2 C685 1ED4 C95A 145F 4300 6F64 7B00 70EF 9882
Alex
Paul Stewart wrote:
Agreed... we migrated away from GSR to 7600 and now looking at migrating back...;) GSR was 100% rock solid for us with PRP-2 processors.... sup720-3bxl has been good but no comparison...
-----Original Message----- From: Neil J. McRae [mailto:neil@DOMINO.ORG] Sent: Monday, July 20, 2009 6:26 AM To: nanog@nanog.org Subject: RE: Cisco 7600 (7609) as a core BGP router.
Personally I'd avoid this platform given 6+ years of trying to make it work reliably. GSR is far better platform.
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
"The information transmitted is intended only for the person or entity to which it is addressed and contains confidential and/or privileged material. If you received this in error, please contact the sender immediately and then destroy this transmission, including all attachments, without copying, distributing or disclosing same. Thank you."
.
About 3 months ago, Cisco Account Team was recommending AS14000 for our company, and we rejected it. Poor product development management! Alex Mohacsi Janos wrote:
On Mon, 20 Jul 2009, Alex H. Ryu wrote:
Because of nowadays network scalability demands, Cisco is preparing ASR 14000 series to replace this one, I think. ^^ Basically ASR 14000 is downgrade version of CRS-1, but I consider it is still developing or beta product.
As far as I know Cisco cancelled ASR14000 platform, but the developed supervisor will be available to CRS-1 platform....
Janos Mohacsi Network Engineer, Research Associate, Head of Network Planning and Projects NIIF/HUNGARNET, HUNGARY Key 70EF9882: DEC2 C685 1ED4 C95A 145F 4300 6F64 7B00 70EF 9882
Alex
Paul Stewart wrote:
Agreed... we migrated away from GSR to 7600 and now looking at migrating back...;) GSR was 100% rock solid for us with PRP-2 processors.... sup720-3bxl has been good but no comparison...
-----Original Message----- From: Neil J. McRae [mailto:neil@DOMINO.ORG] Sent: Monday, July 20, 2009 6:26 AM To: nanog@nanog.org Subject: RE: Cisco 7600 (7609) as a core BGP router.
Personally I'd avoid this platform given 6+ years of trying to make it work reliably. GSR is far better platform.
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
"The information transmitted is intended only for the person or entity to which it is addressed and contains confidential and/or privileged material. If you received this in error, please contact the sender immediately and then destroy this transmission, including all attachments, without copying, distributing or disclosing same. Thank you."
.
what about ASR 9000? 2009/7/20 Alex H. Ryu <r.hyunseog@ieee.org>
About 3 months ago, Cisco Account Team was recommending AS14000 for our company, and we rejected it. Poor product development management!
Alex
Mohacsi Janos wrote:
On Mon, 20 Jul 2009, Alex H. Ryu wrote:
Because of nowadays network scalability demands, Cisco is preparing ASR 14000 series to replace this one, I think. ^^ Basically ASR 14000 is downgrade version of CRS-1, but I consider it is still developing or beta product.
As far as I know Cisco cancelled ASR14000 platform, but the developed supervisor will be available to CRS-1 platform....
Janos Mohacsi Network Engineer, Research Associate, Head of Network Planning and Projects NIIF/HUNGARNET, HUNGARY Key 70EF9882: DEC2 C685 1ED4 C95A 145F 4300 6F64 7B00 70EF 9882
Alex
Paul Stewart wrote:
Agreed... we migrated away from GSR to 7600 and now looking at migrating back...;) GSR was 100% rock solid for us with PRP-2 processors.... sup720-3bxl has been good but no comparison...
-----Original Message----- From: Neil J. McRae [mailto:neil@DOMINO.ORG] Sent: Monday, July 20, 2009 6:26 AM To: nanog@nanog.org Subject: RE: Cisco 7600 (7609) as a core BGP router.
Personally I'd avoid this platform given 6+ years of trying to make it work reliably. GSR is far better platform.
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
"The information transmitted is intended only for the person or entity to which it is addressed and contains confidential and/or privileged material. If you received this in error, please contact the sender immediately and then destroy this transmission, including all attachments, without copying, distributing or disclosing same. Thank you."
.
On Jul 21, 2009, at 5:08 PM, Manu Chao wrote:
what about ASR 9000?
No NetFlow, as least for now (this is important in edge applications, not so much in core); the hardware can do it, but it's yet to be implemented, AFAIK. ----------------------------------------------------------------------- Roland Dobbins <rdobbins@arbor.net> // <http://www.arbornetworks.com> Unfortunately, inefficiency scales really well. -- Kevin Lawton
On Mon, 20 Jul 2009, Mohacsi Janos wrote:
As far as I know Cisco cancelled ASR14000 platform, but the developed supervisor will be available to CRS-1 platform....
The FP-40 (downscaled MSC) has been in the price list for over a month now. -- Mikael Abrahamsson email: swmike@swm.pp.se
On Jul 18, 2009, at 4:30 AM, Steven King wrote:
We use the 7600 platform as a Customer Border device.
The 7600 is actually quite a poor choice as an edge device (any edge) due to its caveats regarding NetFlow, ACLs, and uRPF. It's far better suited to a core role, where it can handle mpps running without the need for these critical edge features. ----------------------------------------------------------------------- Roland Dobbins <rdobbins@arbor.net> // <http://www.arbornetworks.com> Unfortunately, inefficiency scales really well. -- Kevin Lawton
On Sat, Jul 18, 2009 at 11:09:48AM +0700, Roland Dobbins wrote:
On Jul 18, 2009, at 4:30 AM, Steven King wrote:
We use the 7600 platform as a Customer Border device.
The 7600 is actually quite a poor choice as an edge device (any edge) due to its caveats regarding NetFlow, ACLs, and uRPF. It's far better suited to a core role, where it can handle mpps running without the need for these critical edge features.
Funny, I'd argue that they're a terrible choice for a core router, due to their inability to do line rate on a "any port to any port" traffic profile, poor MPLS-TE functionality, and all of the caveats regarding port-channel hashing. I do agree that they're also a poor choice for a transit/peering edge due to their netflow issues (aka "completely worthless, don't even bother trying"), ACLs, and route-map suckage in general, but IMHO the only place they are even remotely usable is a customer aggregation device. With a customer agg router you have a lot of control about how you map the ports <-> fabric channels to avoid intra-channel traffic, on a core device you have no such luxury and you really don't want your network taking a crap when your longhaul or even metro traffic shifts around (as is going to happen on any well connected network). Once you throw in the need to do MPLS and inter-device traffic rates greater than 10G, they're an epic disaster in this role. On the other hand, you may not need netflow on the customer edge if you're doing it on your peering edge, if you structure your network right you can almost completely avoid having to do ACLs on them, and the uRPF functionality is probably the least broken thing about them. You also don't need complex routing policies, you can hang them off more competent routers as route-reflectors, and heck a datacenter agg box is probably the only place you want to be using xenpaks (or even worse, x2) anyways. But as always, your network requirements may vary. The only real argument I can come up with against using them as customer aggregation boxes is that when their interface counters break (which only happens on days that end in y) you're actually misbilling people, and maybe not in the direction you'd prefer. :) -- Richard A Steenbergen <ras@e-gerbil.net> http://www.e-gerbil.net/ras GPG Key ID: 0xF8B12CBC (7535 7F59 8204 ED1F CC1C 53AF 4C41 5ECA F8B1 2CBC)
I previously ran a single 7609 with dual Sup720's as a Core Internet BGP Router, running OSPF & iBGP Never had any problems and was a very stable platform Stephen Bailey - Senior Lead Systems Engineer FUJITSU Fujitsu Services Limited, Registered in England no 96056, Registered Office 22 Baker Street, London, W1U 3BW This e-mail is only for the use of its intended recipient. Its contents are subject to a duty of confidence and may be privileged. Fujitsu Services does not guarantee that this e-mail has not been intercepted and amended or that it is virus-free. -----Original Message----- From: Jim Wininger [mailto:jwininger@indianafiber.net] Sent: 17 July 2009 22:23 To: nanog@nanog.org Subject: Cisco 7600 (7609) as a core BGP router. I have an opportuniy to put two 7609s into the core of my network. Currently we have 3 upstream providers, taking full BGP routes. (2 in one router and one in another). We have 17 BGP peers/customers (peering to each router), and adding about one new BGP peer every 2-3 months. It is a modest network by most standards. We are running OSPF and BGP between the existing routers. Not rocket science, nothing special (no MPLS, no VRF etc), very simple network. Does anyone have any recommendations on the 7600's as a core BGP router? Good or bad? Have they been a stable platform in a core/BGP environment? -- Jim Wininger
On Mon, Jul 20, 2009 at 02:22:22PM +0100, Bailey Stephen wrote:
I previously ran a single 7609 with dual Sup720's as a Core Internet BGP Router, running OSPF & iBGP
It's hard to classify a single router as a "core", don't you think? -- Richard A Steenbergen <ras@e-gerbil.net> http://www.e-gerbil.net/ras GPG Key ID: 0xF8B12CBC (7535 7F59 8204 ED1F CC1C 53AF 4C41 5ECA F8B1 2CBC)
On Mon, Jul 20, 2009 at 8:46 AM, Richard A Steenbergen <ras@e-gerbil.net>wrote:
On Mon, Jul 20, 2009 at 02:22:22PM +0100, Bailey Stephen wrote:
I previously ran a single 7609 with dual Sup720's as a Core Internet BGP Router, running OSPF & iBGP
It's hard to classify a single router as a "core", don't you think?
Is two enough? ;)
-- Richard A Steenbergen <ras@e-gerbil.net> http://www.e-gerbil.net/ras GPG Key ID: 0xF8B12CBC (7535 7F59 8204 ED1F CC1C 53AF 4C41 5ECA F8B1 2CBC)
-- Brandon Galbraith Mobile: 630.400.6992 FNAL: 630.840.2141
Core typically references functionality, not the number of network devices at that layer. tv ----- Original Message ----- From: "Richard A Steenbergen" <ras@e-gerbil.net> To: "Bailey Stephen" <Stephen.Bailey@uk.fujitsu.com> Cc: <nanog@nanog.org> Sent: Monday, July 20, 2009 8:46 AM Subject: Re: Cisco 7600 (7609) as a core BGP router.
On Mon, Jul 20, 2009 at 02:22:22PM +0100, Bailey Stephen wrote:
I previously ran a single 7609 with dual Sup720's as a Core Internet BGP Router, running OSPF & iBGP
It's hard to classify a single router as a "core", don't you think?
-- Richard A Steenbergen <ras@e-gerbil.net> http://www.e-gerbil.net/ras GPG Key ID: 0xF8B12CBC (7535 7F59 8204 ED1F CC1C 53AF 4C41 5ECA F8B1 2CBC)
participants (20)
-
Alex H. Ryu -
Bailey Stephen -
Brad Fleming -
Brandon Galbraith -
Dan Armstrong -
Drew Weaver -
Jim Wininger -
Jon Lewis -
Kevin Oberman -
Manu Chao -
Mikael Abrahamsson -
Mohacsi Janos -
Neil J. McRae -
Paul Stewart -
Peter Kranz -
Richard A Steenbergen -
Roland Dobbins -
Steven King -
sthaugļ¼ nethelp.no -
Tony Varriale