Hello All,
If I wish to purchase a Cisco router that handles a full internet BGP feed what are the minimum specs I should be looking at?
Regards
Mark Bojara
On Mon, 3 Jan 2005, Mark Bojara wrote:
Hello All,
If I wish to purchase a Cisco router that handles a full internet BGP
feed what are the minimum specs I should be looking at?
Regards Mark Bojara
If that is your ONLY requirement you can probably get a 4500M or 4700M
cheap on EBAY. With
Well,
In my experience it depends on the model of router. I
had a 3640 (granted, it's old) with 128MB that was just fine until a couple of
months ago, now it's not enough. For one BGP table you will have to have
at least 256MB in a 36xx router. Our 720xVXR routers currently have 256MB
in
On Mon, 3 Jan 2005, Mark Bojara wrote:
Well it must also be able to do QoS aswell
Oh, you want it to forward packets also? How many PPS/How much bandwith?
but I take it thats pretty much standard in most 12.x IOS's..
Well, if you plan to run anything other than 12.0 you can forget about the
Looking at the current agenda, there's a Special Community
Meeting Sunday evening after the tutorials, but with no
details posted. Should we expected any so that attendees
flying in can determine if they should skip dinner to make it?
Thanks for the nudge, Joe. There are details here:
Re: IPv6, IPSEC and DoS
On Mon, 3 Jan 2005, Mohacsi Janos wrote:
To prevent ARP or ND spoofing attack you should have L2 switch support to
it! Or you can use static ARP or ND entries, which is rather difficult to
maintain.
Regards,
Janos Mohacsi
Funny you should mention this I
Susan,
I think the NANOG community as a whole is looking for more information to be
put out ahead of time regarding this event.
The information requested from Alex's post today is what we are most after:
Regarding http://www.nanog.org/mtg-0501/coordination.html -- can someone
comment on who
On 3-jan-05, at 16:29, J. Oquendo wrote:
To prevent ARP or ND spoofing attack you should have L2 switch
support to
it! Or you can use static ARP or ND entries, which is rather
difficult to
maintain.
Funny you should mention this I thought about this but figure the
following, regardless of
--- Iljitsch van Beijnum [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
If you can then enforce the port-MAC-IP mappings
you're pretty much
bullet proof. I know there are switches that can
handle the port-MAC
part. An alternative for the MAC-IP part would be
the TCP MD5 option
or IPsec.
I guess it's
On 3 Jan 2005, at 11:11, David Barak wrote:
I guess it's true that everything old is new again:
isn't this effectively circuit-switching?
No, it's packet-switching with a provisioning process reminiscent of
the Book of Telco. Static provisioning does not a circuit make.
Joe
On 3-jan-05, at 10:55:49, Iljitsch van Beijnum wrote:
If you can then enforce the port-MAC-IP mappings you're pretty much
bullet proof. I know there are switches that can handle the port-MAC
part. An alternative for the MAC-IP part would be the TCP MD5 option or
IPsec.
And what if an
On Sun, 2 Jan 2005, Edward B. Dreger wrote:
CLM From: Christopher L. Morrow
CLM as a start, dropping HSRP and just managing 2 BGP peers from both
CLM ends one with metric 0 and one with metric 10 toward his ISP should
CLM satisfy all parties requirements. It should be a 'standard' config
36xx or 72xx
Old != bad .
All you need is MEMORY = = 256 Mb.
- Original 36xx, 72xx
Message -
From:
Erik
Amundson
To: Mark Bojara ; nanog@merit.edu
Sent: Monday, January 03, 2005 6:27
AM
Subject: RE: minimum requirements for a
full bgp feed
Well,
--- Joe Abley [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
No, it's packet-switching with a provisioning
process reminiscent of
the Book of Telco. Static provisioning does not a
circuit make.
Point made - what I was trying to say was that it has
most of the disadvantages of a circuit-switched architecture...
On Mon, 3 Jan 2005, Joe Abley wrote:
On 3 Jan 2005, at 11:11, David Barak wrote:
I guess it's true that everything old is new again:
isn't this effectively circuit-switching?
No, it's packet-switching with a provisioning process reminiscent of
the Book of Telco. Static provisioning
Mark Bojara wrote:
Hello All,
If I wish to purchase a Cisco router that handles a full internet BGP
feed what are the minimum specs I should be looking at?
Regards
Mark Bojara
Somewhat on topic, saw this today
http://www.cisco.com/cgi-bin/Support/Bugtool/onebug.pl?bugid=CSCef51906
On Mon, 3 Jan 2005, David Barak wrote:
I guess it's true that everything old is new again:
isn't this effectively circuit-switching? If you're
dedicating network elements to particular hosts in a
non-dynamic manner, doesn't that make your
infrastructure effectively a PBX, where moving
On Mon, 3 Jan 2005, Sean Donelan wrote:
Not necessarily. Some public networks are moving away from the ask
everyone the question, anyone can answer model. It cuts down on the
chatter, and the spoofing. That doesn't mean you have to go to a static
provisioning model, but it does mean you
The information requested from Alex's post today is what we are most after:
Regarding http://www.nanog.org/mtg-0501/coordination.html -- can someone
comment on who will from MERIT/NANOG will be present, and what the
moderation will be? What is the intended agenda for this meeting?
My boss
Hey, did anyone notice when UU peering policy explicitly incorporated a
requirement for number of transit customers served, measured by unique
AS?
Thanks,
Tom
On Mon, 3 Jan 2005, Susan Harris wrote:
Also, what are the expected outcomes of this meeting?
We can't predict outcomes until we hear from you folks - that's the goal
of the meeting, to hear any and all concerns about moderation of the NANOG
list, selection of talks for the meetings, and whatever
On Mon, Jan 03, 2005 at 07:35:20PM -0500, Tom Vest wrote:
Hey, did anyone notice when UU peering policy explicitly incorporated
a requirement for number of transit customers served, measured by
unique AS?
It was between 18 and 28 August 2004. I believe it was on Friday
the 27th but my
Just wanted to remind you that our Las Vegas hotel room block rate expires
this Friday, Jan. 7th, and the registration fee goes up by $50 on Monday,
Jan. 10. Keep your eye on the agenda topics page, as we'll be adding
new talks as the meeting approaches:
I'm curious as to what people feel is pro-active for the internet
community as far as an available and active abuse desk goes.. As of late
I run into more and more automated groups who I personally think are
very wrong for forcing reports to come in via e-mail or web submission only.
The
Was told this was off-topic.. oops!
Off-list replies please, thanks.
Matt Hess wrote:
I'm curious as to what people feel is pro-active for the internet
community as far as an available and active abuse desk goes.. As of late
I run into more and more automated groups who I personally think are
On Mon, 3 Jan 2005, Matt Hess wrote:
I'm curious as to what people feel is pro-active for the internet
community as far as an available and active abuse desk goes.. As of late
I run into more and more automated groups who I personally think are
very wrong for forcing reports to come in via
26 matches
Mail list logo
