I don't see any reason why not, as long as you have enough memory to spare for future growth. The one thing you might want to keep in mind is the reconvergence time after a RR reload since you'll be looking at a smaller CPU.
On Fri, Jan 7, 2011 at 10:28 AM, Phil Mayers <[email protected]> wrote: > We run a network of 6500s and Juniper J4350s with OSPF IGP and iBGP > including vpnv4 (with mdt address family) and vpnv6. > > Two of the "central" 6500s have served as the route reflectors for a while > now without problem, however there is a question over whether we could > usefully deploy a pair of dedicated boxes. For one thing it would mean we > could reboot traffic-forwarding devices without affecting BGP sessions, for > another we could get onto a "newer" IOS with features like BGP "selective > address tracking" to kill BGP sessions on IGP flaps. > > We have a pretty small routing table: > > #sh ip route summary > IP routing table name is Default-IP-Routing-Table(0) > IP routing table maximum-paths is 32 > Route Source Networks Subnets Overhead Memory (bytes) > connected 1 20 1580 3024 > static 16 14 2232 12496 > ospf 1 2 66 5328 9792 > Intra-area: 54 Inter-area: 0 External-1: 0 External-2: 14 > NSSA External-1: 0 NSSA External-2: 0 > bgp 64580 11 923 67320 134496 > External: 17 Internal: 917 Local: 0 > internal 25 54700 > Total 55 1023 76460 214508 > Removing Queue Size 0 > > ...although each VRF contains the whole table, so it's actually 10x that. > > I think a 2900 (or even a 1900) with advanced IP services will more than > suffice for this. Any comments? > _______________________________________________ > cisco-nsp mailing list [email protected] > https://puck.nether.net/mailman/listinfo/cisco-nsp > archive at http://puck.nether.net/pipermail/cisco-nsp/ > _______________________________________________ cisco-nsp mailing list [email protected] https://puck.nether.net/mailman/listinfo/cisco-nsp archive at http://puck.nether.net/pipermail/cisco-nsp/
