On Jun 15, 2009, at 11:29 AM, Kevin Graham wrote:
Given the 192 ports of 10/100/1000, presumably this is aggregating
customers,
in which case it'd be best to roll these up on 7600/RSP720 (along
with their
associated BGP, since most of them would probably be suitable for
peer-groups).
uRPF wouldn't be a problem, and hopefully ACL's would be uniform
enough across
customers to share most of the ACE entries.
With that compromise (namely loosing customer-customer netflow
detail), the
remaining requirements for full netflow exports and the balance of
the BGP
workload are feasible for any of ASR1k, GSR, or CRS-1.
We don't have core and edge -- our switches do both. Every port on
the switch is either a BGP peer/uplink/downlink or a customer. Every
port layer3-routed with only a few handfuls of customers with dual
links.
Purchasing a switch to be the edge and then another to handle BGP
seems a bit of overkill for our fairly small datacenters (largest
will have around 300 customers ~ 360 ports). I'd prefer something
that can handle both edge and core duties.
--
Jo Rhett
Net Consonance : consonant endings by net philanthropy, open source
and other randomness
_______________________________________________
cisco-nsp mailing list [email protected]
https://puck.nether.net/mailman/listinfo/cisco-nsp
archive at http://puck.nether.net/pipermail/cisco-nsp/
