--- On Tue, 3/27/12, Tom Daly <[email protected]> wrote: > From: Tom Daly <[email protected]> > Subject: Re: Force10 E Series at the edge? > To: "Brent Roberts" <[email protected]> > Cc: "NANOG" <[email protected]> > Date: Tuesday, March 27, 2012, 8:59 PM > Brent, > Your options include, for smaller boxes: > > - Brocade CER series, but make sure you the -RT versions due > to RAM (haven't tried, though) > - Juniper MX (MX80 is working well for us) > - Cisco ASR1006 (heard a lot about BGP price issues) > > But for 300mb/sec, what not OpenBSD + Quagga? > > Tom > > > > ----- Original Message ----- > > I was very happy with the E300 as a data center core > switch handling > > multiple full feeds (around 15) with about 10x the > traffic you are > > talking about. The only problem I had was that > Force10 didn't have > > a useful (basically forklift) upgrade to get more IPv4 > prefixes, and > > the more I talked to them and the more I showed them > the graphs > > demonstrating what we'd need for prefix space assuming > even the most > > conservative assumptions at depletion, the more I > realized they > > really Did Not Get It. In fact, their brand new > architecture > > recently announced had only 500k prefixes allowed, at a > time that > > the Juniper MX platform handled 2million easily. > > > > So I would be fine using Force10 again, given the > following changes: > > 1. Large limits on IP prefixes > allowed > > 2. Reallocation of useless memory > from stupid things like MAC tables > > to prefixes (data centers have very > few MACs, very many prefixes) > > 3. Command line logging > > > > The units worked great at failover, never had any > problems gracefully > > failing over from one RP to another, but if you have to > cold boot > > them for any reason it takes like 5 minutes :( > > > > On Mar 27, 2012, at 2:21 PM, Roberts, Brent wrote: > > > Is anyone running an E300 Series Chassis at the > internet edge with > > > multiple Full BGP feeds? 95th percent would be > about 300 meg of > > > traffic. BGP session count would be between 2 and > 4 Peers. > > > 6k internal Prefix count as it stands right now. > Alternative are > > > welcome. Thought about the ASR1006 but I need some > local switching > > > as well. > > > > > > Full requirements include > > > Full internet Peering over GigE Links. > > > Fully Redundant Power > > > Redundant "Supervisor/Route Processor" > > > Would prefer a Small Chassis unit. (under 10u) > > > Would also prefer a single unit as opposed to a > two smaller units. > > >
I can't speak for forece10 which is DELL now. As Joe mentioned, the biggest problem is "their-support" of 680k prefixes with the QUAD-CAM linecards. DUAL-CAM line cards do 512K in theory. Regular ones don't work because thay support 320K prefifex and "die" around 300K They have other idiotic-implementations(when to set/NOT set ospf forwarding-address) buggy vrrp implemtation but I am told "it will be fixed in the next release of FTOS. So, NO! the 300i, 600 or 120 are good a good fit as edge/core layer devices. On a sepatare note.....their S50 switches; I have found to be "great" as long as your l2 environment doesn't require Rapid-PVST. They do PVST but 802.1W is a single instance. ./Randy
