Nick, Thanks for the advice. I understand the model is limited but it looks like it is geared towards a network of our size. We're just accepting default from the upstream providers so not too worried about the size of the routing table. Mostly concerned if there are NAT/PBR/BGP limitations.
Thanks again, Brian On Thu, May 26, 2011 at 11:04 AM, Nick Hilliard <[email protected]> wrote: > On 26/05/2011 14:47, Brian Roche wrote: >> >> ASR1001 base with 4 gigE ports. Getting a quote on the ASR1001 b/c it > > Don't expect an ASR1001 to be able to handle a full routing table within the > next two years. They have enough space on the ESP to handle only 500k ipv4 > prefixes (or 125k ipv6), and it is highly likely that with the expected > growth of ipv6, that this memory will be exceeded before too long. Bear in > mind that on these boxes, a single ipv6 prefix takes up as much lookup > memory as four ipv4 addresses. > > If you need to do full routing and want to do it on the ASR1k (which is a > really nice platform, btw), then you should look at an ASR1002 + ESP10 or > larger (which will handle 1.7M ipv4 / 500k ipv6 prefixes). > > Otherwise yeah - the ASR1k platform is a huge improvement on the 7300 / > NPE-G2 line. > > Nick > > _______________________________________________ cisco-nsp mailing list [email protected] https://puck.nether.net/mailman/listinfo/cisco-nsp archive at http://puck.nether.net/pipermail/cisco-nsp/
