On 6/27/11 1:30 PM, Murphy, Jay, DOH wrote: > How about when you stack them as a logical switch. Couldn't one leverage the > memory and processing of the stacking?
If you're taking just a default eBGP route from each external neighbor and using multi-homing as a primary/failover, you can get away with it. "Multi-homed BGP gateway" in your original post implies taking at least a partial table from a diversity of transit providers and/or peers, and these switches just aren't capable of dealing with anywhere near that many routes. > -----Original Message----- > From: cisco-nsp-boun...@puck.nether.net > [mailto:cisco-nsp-boun...@puck.nether.net] On Behalf Of Jay Hennigan > Sent: Monday, June 27, 2011 1:11 PM > To: cisco-nsp@puck.nether.net > Subject: Re: [c-nsp] L3 Switch as a BGP Gateway > > On 6/27/11 11:59 AM, Jason Greenberg wrote: >> Can someone advise me as to why a 3750 L3 Switch (Metro Model) wouldn't >> outperform a 7300 series router as a multi-homed BGP gateway? ISRs and >> Enterprise class routers are still quite a bit more expensive than the L3 >> Switches, but I'm starting to not understand why. I understand that L3 >> switches are less feature rich on the routing end, but suppose that our ASAs >> are doing most of the complicated filtering. I know it doesn't sound >> "right" to have a 3750G used in this manner, but I am having a hard time >> finding any real reason why not to do it. > > The memory and number of routes are far too small to use these as a > border router. Generally adequate for iBGP to inject customer routes > into your network but way too little for an Internet-facing border. -- Jay Hennigan - CCIE #7880 - Network Engineering - j...@impulse.net Impulse Internet Service - http://www.impulse.net/ Your local telephone and internet company - 805 884-6323 - WB6RDV _______________________________________________ cisco-nsp mailing list cisco-nsp@puck.nether.net https://puck.nether.net/mailman/listinfo/cisco-nsp archive at http://puck.nether.net/pipermail/cisco-nsp/
