Re: [c-nsp] L3 Switch as a BGP Gateway
Yes, without full feeds, and allowing the provider to filter their routes, and you route statically to your provider. For Metro optical Ethernet, it is a deployable solution. Current BGP routes, roughly 350,000+, in addition to internal routes and what have you... that said, a BGP speaker used only for a network with a single point of entry to the Internet may have a much smaller routing table size--thus the modest requirements needed for RAM and CPU--than a multi-homed network. Even simple multi-homing can have modest routing table size. ~Jay Murphy Sr. IP Network Specialist NM State Government IT Services Division PSB – IP Network Management Center Santa Fé, New México 87505 We move the information that moves your world. “Engineering is about finding the sweet spot between what's solvable and what isn't. “Good engineering demands that we understand what we’re doing and why, keep an open mind, and learn from experience.” Radia Perlman If human beings are perceived as potentials rather than problems, as possessing strengths instead of weaknesses, as unlimited rather than dull and unresponsive, then they thrive and grow to their capabilities. Please consider the environment before printing e-mail -Original Message- From: far...@gmail.com [mailto:far...@gmail.com] Sent: Monday, June 27, 2011 7:24 PM To: Jay Hennigan; cisco-nsp-boun...@puck.nether.net; Murphy, Jay, DOH Cc: cisco-nsp@puck.nether.net Subject: Re: [c-nsp] L3 Switch as a BGP Gateway Dear Jay, As far as I know, IPv4 BGP entry is more than 300k entry, I don't think it will suite with a 3750. Please refer to routing handling from its datasheet. I'm agree with the other, if you would run default gateway for multihomed upstream, 3750 will do. Hope it help. Rgrds, -farisy- -Original Message- From: Jay Hennigan j...@west.net Sender: cisco-nsp-boun...@puck.nether.net Date: Mon, 27 Jun 2011 13:44:07 To: Murphy, Jay, DOHjay.mur...@state.nm.us Cc: cisco-nsp@puck.nether.netcisco-nsp@puck.nether.net Subject: Re: [c-nsp] L3 Switch as a BGP Gateway 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/ ___ 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/
[c-nsp] L3 Switch as a BGP Gateway
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. Thanks, Jay This message has originated from Autodata Solutions. The attached material is the Confidential and Proprietary Information of Autodata Solutions. This email and any files transmitted with it are confidential and intended solely for the use of the individual or entity to whom they are addressed. If you have received this email in error please delete this message and notify the Autodata system administrator at administra...@autodata.net ___ 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/
Re: [c-nsp] L3 Switch as a BGP Gateway
Probably memory and entries in the routing table being the limiters. Remember (not sure on the 3750) but many devices fall short of the 350+ K routes needed to install a full table. On Jun 27, 2011, at 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. Thanks, Jay This message has originated from Autodata Solutions. The attached material is the Confidential and Proprietary Information of Autodata Solutions. This email and any files transmitted with it are confidential and intended solely for the use of the individual or entity to whom they are addressed. If you have received this email in error please delete this message and notify the Autodata system administrator at administra...@autodata.net ___ 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/ ___ 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/
Re: [c-nsp] L3 Switch as a BGP Gateway
On 06/27/11 21:59, 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. Number of BGP prefixes. ___ 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/
Re: [c-nsp] L3 Switch as a BGP Gateway
On Mon, 2011-06-27 at 14:59 -0400, 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? Number of prefixes. A 3750 can take at most up to ~11K routes; more than that makes it fall back to software switching, which means performance is much worse that e.g. a 7300. The lack of processing power on a 3750 might also make filtering and whatever else you'd like to use on your BGP sessions a lot slower. If you can accept these two caveats the 3750 indeed does outperform any software based switch hands down. -- Peter ___ 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/
Re: [c-nsp] L3 Switch as a BGP Gateway
On 6/27/2011 11:59, 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. It will outperform a software router and move packets at line rate. It doesn't even have to be the metro version. It will fail at: 1) Having enough TCAM/memory to take more than a handful of routes 2) Doing anything substantial in CPU (like BGP calculations) 3) Forwarding in CPU if the TCAM is exceeded If you intend to only take a BGP default route and announce some prefixes upstream it will likely do just fine. Plenty of people utilize L3 switches in this role. ~Seth ___ 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/
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/
Re: [c-nsp] L3 Switch as a BGP Gateway
How about when you stack them as a logical switch. Couldn't one leverage the memory and processing of the stacking? ~Jay Murphy Sr. IP Network Specialist NM State Government IT Services Division PSB – IP Network Management Center Santa Fé, New México 87505 We move the information that moves your world. “Engineering is about finding the sweet spot between what's solvable and what isn't. “Good engineering demands that we understand what we’re doing and why, keep an open mind, and learn from experience.” Radia Perlman If human beings are perceived as potentials rather than problems, as possessing strengths instead of weaknesses, as unlimited rather than dull and unresponsive, then they thrive and grow to their capabilities. Please consider the environment before printing e-mail -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/ ___ 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/
Re: [c-nsp] L3 Switch as a BGP Gateway
Not really. Think of the memory latency to traverse the stack. Generally CPU - Memory bandwidth is measured at rates of speed and access higher than 1 or 10Gb/s. Taking the PCI Express standard as a basic threshold of getting things into or out of the CPU, a 16-lane slot starts at 32Gb/s. You start talking about the need to 'swap' as well as 'protect' in the stack against memory faults and failures. This is certainly not ideal. It may be useful for transient memory usage (e.g.: packet buffer memory, where one can expect the application or OS to do retransmits) but certainly not for your routing protocol to suddenly have half its resident memory go *poof* if the cable stack goes away. - Jared On Jun 27, 2011, at 4:30 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? ~Jay Murphy Sr. IP Network Specialist NM State Government IT Services Division PSB – IP Network Management Center Santa Fé, New México 87505 We move the information that moves your world. “Engineering is about finding the sweet spot between what's solvable and what isn't. “Good engineering demands that we understand what we’re doing and why, keep an open mind, and learn from experience.” Radia Perlman If human beings are perceived as potentials rather than problems, as possessing strengths instead of weaknesses, as unlimited rather than dull and unresponsive, then they thrive and grow to their capabilities. Please consider the environment before printing e-mail -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/ ___ 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/ ___ 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/
Re: [c-nsp] L3 Switch as a BGP Gateway
Route limitations are in hardware I believe. On Jun 27, 2011, at 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? ~Jay Murphy Sr. IP Network Specialist NM State Government IT Services Division PSB – IP Network Management Center Santa Fé, New México 87505 We move the information that moves your world. “Engineering is about finding the sweet spot between what's solvable and what isn't. “Good engineering demands that we understand what we’re doing and why, keep an open mind, and learn from experience.” Radia Perlman If human beings are perceived as potentials rather than problems, as possessing strengths instead of weaknesses, as unlimited rather than dull and unresponsive, then they thrive and grow to their capabilities. Please consider the environment before printing e-mail -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/ ___ 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/ ___ 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/
Re: [c-nsp] L3 Switch as a BGP Gateway
Because of what in hardware? Switching fabric; ASICs. Memory is upgradeable. How about considering MTBF. Really, hardware has limitations anyway. Equipment is replete with all kinds of thresholds. Larger boxes are not exempt per se. It's really what one is willing to address. Filters, as the man said earlier; I mean, flexibility is applicable: partial routes, not the complete routing table, in some instances. It's how we frame it. When a router/switch craps out, we replace it; no matter what model we've deployed. So some of this input holds weight, the rest are bones. No vendor creates the 'bullet-proof' appliance. ~Jay Murphy Sr. IP Network Specialist NM State Government IT Services Division PSB – IP Network Management Center Santa Fé, New México 87505 We move the information that moves your world. “Engineering is about finding the sweet spot between what's solvable and what isn't. “Good engineering demands that we understand what we’re doing and why, keep an open mind, and learn from experience.” Radia Perlman If human beings are perceived as potentials rather than problems, as possessing strengths instead of weaknesses, as unlimited rather than dull and unresponsive, then they thrive and grow to their capabilities. Please consider the environment before printing e-mail -Original Message- From: Scott Granados [mailto:sc...@granados-llc.net] Sent: Monday, June 27, 2011 2:45 PM To: Murphy, Jay, DOH Cc: Jay Hennigan; cisco-nsp@puck.nether.net Subject: Re: [c-nsp] L3 Switch as a BGP Gateway Route limitations are in hardware I believe. On Jun 27, 2011, at 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? ~Jay Murphy Sr. IP Network Specialist NM State Government IT Services Division PSB – IP Network Management Center Santa Fé, New México 87505 We move the information that moves your world. “Engineering is about finding the sweet spot between what's solvable and what isn't. “Good engineering demands that we understand what we’re doing and why, keep an open mind, and learn from experience.” Radia Perlman If human beings are perceived as potentials rather than problems, as possessing strengths instead of weaknesses, as unlimited rather than dull and unresponsive, then they thrive and grow to their capabilities. Please consider the environment before printing e-mail -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/ ___ 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/ ___ 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/
Re: [c-nsp] L3 Switch as a BGP Gateway
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/
Re: [c-nsp] L3 Switch as a BGP Gateway
Dear Jay, As far as I know, IPv4 BGP entry is more than 300k entry, I don't think it will suite with a 3750. Please refer to routing handling from its datasheet. I'm agree with the other, if you would run default gateway for multihomed upstream, 3750 will do. Hope it help. Rgrds, -farisy- -Original Message- From: Jay Hennigan j...@west.net Sender: cisco-nsp-boun...@puck.nether.net Date: Mon, 27 Jun 2011 13:44:07 To: Murphy, Jay, DOHjay.mur...@state.nm.us Cc: cisco-nsp@puck.nether.netcisco-nsp@puck.nether.net Subject: Re: [c-nsp] L3 Switch as a BGP Gateway 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/ ___ 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/
Re: [c-nsp] L3 Switch as a BGP Gateway
On 6/27/2011 2:59 PM, 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? They can't scale to a full BGP feed. If you do some exaggerated filtering and aggregation, maybe; if you just want defaults plus a few key routes, sure. I'm not sure about the Metro version of the 3750, but a few other data points... WS-3750G: #sho sdm prefer routing number of unicast mac addresses: 3K number of IPv4 IGMP groups + multicast routes:1K number of IPv4 unicast routes:11K number of directly-connected IPv4 hosts:3K number of indirect IPv4 routes: 8K number of IPv4 policy based routing aces: 0.5K number of IPv4/MAC qos aces: 0.5K number of IPv4/MAC security aces: 1K WS-3750E and WS-3750X are the same exact values. For that matter so are the 3560G and 3560X. But oddly enough, I have a 3750G-12 stack that shows a bit more: #show sdm prefer routing number of unicast mac addresses: 6K number of IPv4 IGMP groups + multicast routes:1K number of IPv4 unicast routes:20K number of directly-connected IPv4 hosts:6K number of indirect IPv4 routes: 14K number of IPv4 policy based routing aces: 0.5K number of IPv4/MAC qos aces: 0.5K number of IPv4/MAC security aces: 1K And an old 3550-12 (if you don't need the extended match template [IPv6 or VRFs or policy routing]): PCP-Phase-III-3550#sho sdm prefer routing number of unicast mac addresses: 6K number of igmp groups: 6K number of qos aces:1K number of security aces: 1K number of unicast routes: 24K number of multicast routes:6K But bottom line, 24K is a whole lot less than the current routing tables (~360K last I checked). If you have a truckload of cash, and get the precisely correct supervisors / blades / daughtercards, the 6500/7600 can do multihoming with full feeds, but I think that's the only Catalyst platform that can. Jeff Jeff ___ 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/
Re: [c-nsp] L3 Switch as a BGP Gateway
And a cat 6k/7600 will take forever to reconverge with large tables. On Jun 27, 2011 10:10 PM, Jeff Kell jeff-k...@utc.edu wrote: On 6/27/2011 2:59 PM, 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? They can't scale to a full BGP feed. If you do some exaggerated filtering and aggregation, maybe; if you just want defaults plus a few key routes, sure. I'm not sure about the Metro version of the 3750, but a few other data points... WS-3750G: #sho sdm prefer routing number of unicast mac addresses: 3K number of IPv4 IGMP groups + multicast routes: 1K number of IPv4 unicast routes: 11K number of directly-connected IPv4 hosts: 3K number of indirect IPv4 routes: 8K number of IPv4 policy based routing aces: 0.5K number of IPv4/MAC qos aces: 0.5K number of IPv4/MAC security aces: 1K WS-3750E and WS-3750X are the same exact values. For that matter so are the 3560G and 3560X. But oddly enough, I have a 3750G-12 stack that shows a bit more: #show sdm prefer routing number of unicast mac addresses: 6K number of IPv4 IGMP groups + multicast routes: 1K number of IPv4 unicast routes: 20K number of directly-connected IPv4 hosts: 6K number of indirect IPv4 routes: 14K number of IPv4 policy based routing aces: 0.5K number of IPv4/MAC qos aces: 0.5K number of IPv4/MAC security aces: 1K And an old 3550-12 (if you don't need the extended match template [IPv6 or VRFs or policy routing]): PCP-Phase-III-3550#sho sdm prefer routing number of unicast mac addresses: 6K number of igmp groups: 6K number of qos aces: 1K number of security aces: 1K number of unicast routes: 24K number of multicast routes: 6K But bottom line, 24K is a whole lot less than the current routing tables (~360K last I checked). If you have a truckload of cash, and get the precisely correct supervisors / blades / daughtercards, the 6500/7600 can do multihoming with full feeds, but I think that's the only Catalyst platform that can. Jeff Jeff ___ 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/ ___ 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/
