Mark, Even with no full-routing capability, one can still do L3 or L2 VPN so the customer can reach a central Internet router with half million/one million routes if it`s a BGP customer, or follow default if it's a single-homed customer. That works if such a BGP customer are in the few percent exception, not on 90%+ rule... which is the case for our market, but might not be the case for the original poster. Good point.
Rubens On Tue, Sep 16, 2008 at 10:33 PM, Mark Tinka <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > On Wednesday 17 September 2008 09:24:13 Rubens Kuhl Jr. > wrote: > >> Cisco 7600 + ES20 are way too expensive on a price/port >> perspective. Consider distributing smaller Cisco ME6524 >> boxes (which is not as cheap as it used to be, but it is >> still lot less than 7600)... > > In our consideration for a "small" box capable of handling a > large number of EoMPLS VC's, the ME6524 came up - but > sadly, we can only think of it in that function, and not a > combined L2VPN + IP termination device. > > This is because it can only support 256,000 v4 routing > entries (PFC-3C). > > Would advise the OP to look at this if he's thinking of > carrying full routes on it. If 0/0 is good enough, then no > worries. > > Mark. > _______________________________________________ cisco-nsp mailing list [email protected] https://puck.nether.net/mailman/listinfo/cisco-nsp archive at http://puck.nether.net/pipermail/cisco-nsp/
