|
North American Network Operators Group Date Prev | Date Next | Date Index | Thread Index | Author Index | Historical Re: Route table growth and hardware limits...talk to the filter
On 9/21/07 7:18 AM, "Pekka Savola" <[email protected]> wrote: > The way I see it, a network which is considering "Juniper M7i or Cisco > 7300 plus a couple of switches" as an option does not _need_ 220K IPv4 > routes in its routing table. Whether it has 150K, 40K (Hi Simon!) or > 5K shouldn't matter that much from the functionality perspective. There are a couple of reasons: 1. The "captain obvious" suggestion of a default means that now I'm paying for multiple links but can only use one. That's not cost effective and will provide lower performance for some destinations. I have done defaults in the past where appropriate but it's not appropriate in this application. 2. The idea of a complex filtering strategy is, from my perspective, an even worse idea. You get all of the downsides of a default with increased operational complexity that may not scale across multiple sites depending on the size of your ops team. Oh, and don't forget, for testing and validation you'd need to buy a router that can take these multiple feeds to test the results of the filtering policy. Both of those options are viable (#1 obviously over #2) if just basic connectivity is required. However I find myself not really wanting to have to continually support solutions with such limitations when there are other options. -- John A. Kilpatrick [email protected] Email| http://www.hypergeek.net/ [email protected] Text pages| ICQ: 19147504 remember: no obstacles/only challenges
|