Re: fs.com dwdm equipment
> > Hi All, Thank you very much all of you for the valuable feedback. Regards, Samir >
RE: BGP topological vs centralized route reflector
yes From: Jason Lixfeld Sent: Tuesday, February 19, 2019 4:06 PM To: adamv0...@netconsultings.com Cc: Mohammad Khalil ; nanog@nanog.org Subject: Re: BGP topological vs centralized route reflector Hi Adam, On Feb 19, 2019, at 10:28 AM, mailto:adamv0...@netconsultings.com> > mailto:adamv0...@netconsultings.com> > wrote: -Type-1 RDs will help you simulate full-mesh. By “Type-1 RD”, are you referring to a unique RD per PE?
Re: BGP topological vs centralized route reflector
Hi Adam, > On Feb 19, 2019, at 10:28 AM, > wrote: > > -Type-1 RDs will help you simulate full-mesh. By “Type-1 RD”, are you referring to a unique RD per PE?
RE: MX204 applications, (was about BGP RR design)
> Saku Ytti > Sent: Friday, February 15, 2019 8:41 AM > > On Fri, Feb 15, 2019 at 9:55 AM Mark Tinka wrote: > > > > MX204 be good for that ? > > > > I'm sure it will be - it's an MPC7 in a cage :-). > > Anyone know why MX204 has so few ports? It seems like it only has WAN > side used, leaving FAB side entirely unused, throwing away 50% of free > capacity. > I don't think aiming for good PPS is the case. See KB33477, if the "spare" capacity was there to boost the available pps budget for the artificially limited number of ports I don't think there would be any KB33477. Maybe some other architectural challenge, don't know? Also this could be asked of any platform from any vendor, just give us 48x 40/100GE ports for each NPU and we'll figure out what to do with those. Maybe there will be use-cases where I enable all of them as I don't expect much traffic/pps to be generated on each port and maybe there will be cases where I enable just one port as I expect 64b frames @ line-rate and have 100k lines in the filter matching for packet size. You actually reminded me of the A9K-24X10GE vs A9K-36X10GE (yes please, I'll have 36 ports variant and I'll decide what to do with them). adam
Re: Cisco ASR's with RSP440 engines...
On Tue, 19 Feb 2019 at 15:29, Tom Hill wrote: > > On 18/02/2019 21:50, John Von Essen wrote: Hi John, > > If anyone on here has experience with the ASR series running the > > RSP440-SE or -TR, please contact me off-list. I'm trying to better > > understand real world performance when it comes to handling a few full > > BGP tables on these, it would be running as very basic edge router > > primarily just doing BGP. I know the RSP440 is EOL, but the plan would > > be to upgrade to RSP880 within a year. > > The 440 is a beast. Faster even than the 9001's RP. You'll be fine with > a LOT of BGP edge work. :) Tom's experiances mirror my own, the 440 is a work horse, a few BGP feeds will be no problems. Cheers, James.
Re: Cisco ASR's with RSP440 engines...
On 19/02/2019 15:26, Tom Hill wrote: > I know the RSP440 is EOL, but the plan would > be to upgrade to RSP880 within a year. Also, the RSP880-RL is available for the same price as 440 on list. If you certainly need 880 later, I might be wondering if Cisco will 'help' with securing a discount for the upgrade license later in the day. Just a thought. :) Regards, -- Tom
RE: BGP topological vs centralized route reflector
I seem to remember there were some good old (really old now) books on BGP discussing various design aspects of BGP infrastructure including topology-based or address-based route reflection, etc... Topology-based doesn’t need to mean in-path you can still have a whole fleet of out-of-the-path RRs servicing say south-east region. My advice is: -Keep your RR-1 infra separate form RR-2 infra (when RR1&RR2=same cluster). -Keep your Internet-RRs and Services-RRs infrastructures separate (ships in night), which is very easy to pull off with current virtualized RRs. -Type-1 RDs will help you simulate full-mesh. adam From: NANOG On Behalf Of Mohammad Khalil Sent: Sunday, February 10, 2019 8:10 PM To: nanog@nanog.org Subject: BGP topological vs centralized route reflector Dears Am trying to find some documents and practical implementations regarding bgp topological vs centralized route reflector(In-band vs out-of-band) Any good shares are appreciated
Re: A Zero Spam Mail System [Feedback Request]
On 2/19/19 12:37 AM, Scott Weeks wrote: --- beec...@beecher.cc wrote: From: Tom Beecher Every single person on this list has either sent an email they later regret[...] -- Not me. No way. Never. ;) scott Bet you're about to regret this one. :-) Miles -- In theory, there is no difference between theory and practice. In practice, there is. Yogi Berra
Re: Cisco ASR's with RSP440 engines...
On 18/02/2019 21:50, John Von Essen wrote: > If anyone on here has experience with the ASR series running the > RSP440-SE or -TR, please contact me off-list. I'm trying to better > understand real world performance when it comes to handling a few full > BGP tables on these, it would be running as very basic edge router > primarily just doing BGP. I know the RSP440 is EOL, but the plan would > be to upgrade to RSP880 within a year. The 440 is a beast. Faster even than the 9001's RP. You'll be fine with a LOT of BGP edge work. :) The RSP880 is faster on paper, but I'll be impressed if you notice a difference over the 440 in terms of solely basic BGP edge functions. It of course has support for other things that you might need, however. (No idea why this would need to be offlist...) -- Tom
Microsoft Peering IPv4 BGP Table
If someone could please send me a IPv4 BGP table for the Microsoft Express Routes Microsoft Peer for the prefixes you are receiving, I would appreciate it. thanks; CPV
Re: A Zero Spam Mail System [Feedback Request]
On 2/18/19 9:37 PM, Scott Weeks wrote: > Not me. No way. Never. ;) Then why is Mr. Murphy tapping you on the shoulder? Didn't your Mom and Dad ever tell you to never say "never"?
