|
North American Network Operators Group Date Prev | Date Next | Date Index | Thread Index | Author Index | Historical RE: Cisco Router best for full BGP on a sub 5K bidget 7500 7200 or other vendor ?
What about a 7505 w/ RSP4/256 and 2 VIP 2-50/128s with 4 PA-FE-TXs. For additional port density a 3550 ? What is better about the 7206 VXR ? 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: Charlie Khanna - NextWeb [mailto:[email protected]] Sent: Sunday, April 25, 2004 11:14 PM To: 'Alexei Roudnev'; 'Alexander Hagen'; 'Mikael Abrahamsson' Cc: 'Robert E. Seastrom'; 'Tom (UnitedLayer)'; [email protected] Subject: RE: Cisco Router best for full BGP on a sub 5K bidget 7500 7200 or other vendor ? Depending on the role of the device a 3550 'might' work out fine. For example, if you have a base station and you have route-reflection setup, a 3550 might work fine. However, you cannot put a 3550 at the PAIX (colo) and expect to run full BGP with upstream peers. I really think you should go with a 7206VXR-300 as a low end BGP solution. It will provide you the following that the 3550 will not: 1) Scalability and WAN connectivity. For example, if you need to terminate a DS3, you can do that with a 7206, but not a 3550. 2) You cannot run MPLS or IPv6 on a 3550 as it's not supported on this platform. 3) 7206-VXR chassis (hot-swap), with an NPE 300, can be upgraded to an NPE-400, and then to an NPE-1G (if you need it to). -Charlie -----Original Message----- From: [email protected] [mailto:[email protected]] On Behalf Of Alexei Roudnev Sent: Sunday, April 25, 2004 10:31 PM To: Alexander Hagen; 'Mikael Abrahamsson' Cc: 'Robert E. Seastrom'; 'Tom (UnitedLayer)'; [email protected] Subject: Re: Cisco Router best for full BGP on a sub 5K bidget 7500 7200 or other vendor ? 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:[email protected]] > Sent: Sunday, April 25, 2004 5:09 AM > To: Alexander Hagen > Cc: 'Robert E. Seastrom'; 'Tom (UnitedLayer)'; [email protected] > 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: [email protected] >
|