After many days of searching it looks like I found something in the sub
$20k range. The ME-C6524GT-8S appears to do it all.
On 09/08/2010 04:16 PM, Jon Auer wrote:
Needing full BGP routes takes you out of the realm of cheap Layer 3
switches...
You need to worry about TCAM (hardware route
Beware of the TCAM size on that box.
IIRC it hasn't been able to take full internet routes since 2008
because of that limitation.
On Saturday, September 11, 2010, Matt Jenkins m...@smarterbroadband.net wrote:
After many days of searching it looks like I found something in the sub
$20k range.
I am thinking its time to use a switch as a switch and a router as a
router. I am thinking about using this for the MPLS backbone and put in
actual 7200/7300 routers at locations where full BGP needs to be
offered. What I haven't yet worked out is whether two routers can
establish a BGP
-
What I haven't yet worked out is whether two routers can establish a BGP
peering session over a VPLS VC.
-
Should not be any different than setting up BGP over a Physical
Connection.. As long IP is being passed it should not be a problem.
Faisal Imtiaz
Snappy Internet
That makes sense.
BGP over a VPLS VC shouldn't be any different than BGP across a
Ethernet cable AFAIK.
Have you checked out the Alcatel-Lucent SR series routers? I'm
supposed to be talking to one of their sales reps next week. They nare
really trying to gain market share and i hear hey have some
No I haven't. But I will look into it now. Let me know how your talk
with the sales guys goes?
On 09/11/2010 02:38 PM, Jon Auer wrote:
That makes sense.
BGP over a VPLS VC shouldn't be any different than BGP across a
Ethernet cable AFAIK.
Have you checked out the Alcatel-Lucent SR series
Yikes $40k again. I am trying to come up with a sub $12k solution.
On 09/11/2010 02:39 PM, Matt Jenkins wrote:
No I haven't. But I will look into it now. Let me know how your talk
with the sales guys goes?
On 09/11/2010 02:38 PM, Jon Auer wrote:
That makes sense.
BGP over a VPLS VC
Would a RB1000 and HP Procurve work?
On Sat, Sep 11, 2010 at 4:42 PM, Matt Jenkins m...@smarterbroadband.net wrote:
Yikes $40k again. I am trying to come up with a sub $12k solution.
On 09/11/2010 02:39 PM, Matt Jenkins wrote:
No I haven't. But I will look into it now. Let me know how your
On Wed, Sep 08, 2010 at 07:40:07PM -0400, Faisal Imtiaz wrote:
Welcome to the Mid-range of traffic handling...
There is nothing on the market place that is affordable that will do
what you are looking for.
Best thing you can do is deploy two devices.. a Gig Switch, pick your
favorite
If you are looking for an all-in one thing you are almost going to have
to go with a chassis from Cisco or Juniper or someone. I am a big fan of
the 3 tier design though. The BGP routers should just be doing edge
routing. The access and distribution layers should at least be logically
On Wed, Sep 8, 2010 at 16:31, Matt Jenkins m...@smarterbroadband.netwrote:
I am trying to find a Layer 3 switch that has 24 or 48 1000 base-T ports
with enough RAM to handle Full BGP Internet Routes. Anyone have any
suggestions?
For those who wonder why I am upgrading all of my backhauls
On the bigger equipment, the switches are much more affordable than
the routers, but the routers scale up much higher.
-
Mike Hammett
Intelligent Computing Solutions
http://www.ics-il.com
On 9/8/2010 4:36 PM, David E. Smith wrote:
On Wed, Sep 8, 2010 at 16:31, Matt Jenkins
I have 8+ backhauls at some sites. I want to move from a bridged network
to a routed network using MPLS. This would simplify handing off business
ethernet connections. It would also reduce all of the broadcast traffic
going across the backhauls and reduce the VLAN management required. But
I
Another option is a simple router - that does vlans -
vlan to the switch and go from there :-)
On Sep 8, 2010, at 6:09 PM, Matt Jenkins wrote:
I have 8+ backhauls at some sites. I want to move from a bridged network
to a routed network using MPLS. This would simplify handing off business
Yeah that is an option, but increases the management overhead which is
one of the primary things I am trying to reduce.
On 09/08/2010 03:13 PM, Glenn Kelley wrote:
Another option is a simple router - that does vlans -
vlan to the switch and go from there :-)
On Sep 8, 2010, at 6:09 PM, Matt
It also adds points of failure, increases power consumption, etc.
I'm sure Cisco or Juniper could handle it, but I'm not sure whom else.
Maybe a PowerRouter?
-
Mike Hammett
Intelligent Computing Solutions
http://www.ics-il.com
On 9/8/2010 5:17 PM, Matt Jenkins wrote:
Yeah that is an
Cisco and Juniper are both failing to have a reasonable product.
$60,000+ is a bit too expensive.
On 09/08/2010 03:20 PM, Mike Hammett wrote:
It also adds points of failure, increases power consumption, etc.
I'm sure Cisco or Juniper could handle it, but I'm not sure whom else.
Maybe a
You could simply build a pfsense and/or a vyatta router with an alix board and
a few nics -
Let me do a few searches - and will let you know what I find
On Sep 8, 2010, at 6:21 PM, Matt Jenkins wrote:
Cisco and Juniper are both failing to have a reasonable product.
$60,000+ is a bit too
On Wed, Sep 8, 2010 at 17:09, Matt Jenkins m...@smarterbroadband.netwrote:
I have 8+ backhauls at some sites. I want to move from a bridged network
to a routed network using MPLS. This would simplify handing off business
ethernet connections. It would also reduce all of the broadcast traffic
On 8 September 2010 17:31, Matt Jenkins m...@smarterbroadband.net wrote:
I am trying to find a Layer 3 switch that has 24 or 48 1000 base-T ports
with enough RAM to handle Full BGP Internet Routes. Anyone have any
suggestions?
For those who wonder why I am upgrading all of my backhauls
Needing full BGP routes takes you out of the realm of cheap Layer 3 switches...
You need to worry about TCAM (hardware route memory) in addition to
RAM on Layer 3 switches and apart from decked out Cisco 6500s or
greater you aren't going to find that.
The Juniper MX80 should work. It is 2U and
Welcome to the Mid-range of traffic handling...
There is nothing on the market place that is affordable that will do
what you are looking for.
Best thing you can do is deploy two devices.. a Gig Switch, pick your
favorite vendor... and a Core Router for BGP
For Core Router in the Cisco world
A good starting point would be if Mikrotik would lay off the Linux on
underpowered embedded hardware shtick for a dev cycle or two and make
a board using the Broadcom BMC56330 chipset for Layer3
switching+MPLS/VPLS.
If they can't port their software they could bolt on a existing OEM
router OS like
vyatta has a $799 routing appliance that will work -
pfsense - on hardware will do it for free - (what an amazing price)
:-)
On Sep 8, 2010, at 7:40 PM, Faisal Imtiaz wrote:
Welcome to the Mid-range of traffic handling...
There is nothing on the market place that is affordable that will
Non of the sub $1000 appliances will cut the mustard at 300-500meg of
traffic... 100meg no problem.
Faisal Imtiaz
Snappy Internet Telecom
On 9/8/2010 8:44 PM, Glenn Kelley wrote:
vyatta has a $799 routing appliance that will work -
pfsense - on hardware will do it for free - (what an
Even RB1100 ?
That would be my choice. 399$ for 13 GigE ports...
F.
On 2010-09-08, at 8:53 PM, Faisal Imtiaz wrote:
Non of the sub $1000 appliances will cut the mustard at 300-500meg of
traffic... 100meg no problem.
Faisal Imtiaz
Snappy Internet Telecom
On 9/8/2010 8:44 PM, Glenn
An RB1000 with an external switch will handle more traffic than RB1100.
Rubens
On Wed, Sep 8, 2010 at 10:56 PM, Francois Menard fmen...@xittel.net wrote:
Even RB1100 ?
That would be my choice. 399$ for 13 GigE ports...
F.
On 2010-09-08, at 8:53 PM, Faisal Imtiaz wrote:
Non of the sub
Is this going on a stick on in a building.
We have an opensource Vyatta running circles around the old Vax 7200 stuff
GigE even is not an issue - but used a Dell R300 with 8GB ram to do it.
Still much cheaper than most anything else on the planet for the same config
On Sep 8, 2010, at 8:53
What kind of PPS are you seeing on that setup?
On Wed, Sep 8, 2010 at 9:48 PM, Glenn Kelley gl...@hostmedic.com wrote:
Is this going on a stick on in a building.
We have an opensource Vyatta running circles around the old Vax 7200 stuff
GigE even is not an issue - but used a Dell R300 with 8GB
So here is a nice ref. document from Cisco, pps rating on their routers...
Take a look at the PPS rating and the Max Mbps, (you still have to
consider Memory etc etc.).
http://www.cisco.com/web/partners/downloads/765/tools/quickreference/routerperformance.pdf
I am not aware of a similar
The RB1000 is not much of a router when under load. You can build a 1u
ATOM based system for less money that has 4x the horsepower.
Travis
Microserv
On 9/8/2010 9:20 PM, Faisal Imtiaz wrote:
So here is a nice ref. document from Cisco, pps rating on their routers...
Take a look at the
I love mine but only pushin 20Mbps peak. Then again it was only $700. How
much can you build the Atom unit for?
On Wed, Sep 8, 2010 at 11:25 PM, Travis Johnson t...@ida.net wrote:
The RB1000 is not much of a router when under load. You can build a 1u
ATOM based system for less money that has
If you have a ring, don't do layer 3. Use L2 switch that have some
form of rapid recovery that isn't spanning-tree based, and have 2
strong Layer 3 routers connected to it.
An usual combination is Extreme pizza boxes with EAPS ring-protection,
2 Juniper M7i routers with VRRP, but many others will
We've built Supermicro 1U Atom boxes for under $600 to use as DNS servers.
That was with 2x 2.5 inch hard drives.
You'd probably run RouterOS off of a USB stick instead.
That would save you around $120.
Not much of a point to the RB1000 when a 1U Atom box is cheaper and
can run rings around it in
That might be my next step. Interesting though - a couple years ago, I
originally had a high end PC (for it's time - Athon 64 Dual-core X2 4200+
with 4GB of memory) running RouterOS. Swapped it out for a RB450G and in my
opinion, the little 450G kicked the PC's butt. So now I'm skeptical.
On Wed,
Last one I built was less than $400. CPU on the RB1000 was over 30%
compared to 10% on the ATOM unit, exact same traffic.
Travis
Microserv
On 9/8/2010 9:31 PM, RickG wrote:
I love mine but only pushin 20Mbps peak. Then again it was only $700.
How much can you build the Atom unit for?
On
Any of the X86 based systems are going to kill the RB platform we
have an X86 system moving 500Mbps of traffic (400Mbps x 100Mbps) on a
daily basis... connection tracking on, queues, NAT rules, etc. and the
CPU runs at 11% all day long. :)
Travis
Microserv
On 9/8/2010 9:47 PM, RickG
I cannot find the PPS rating on RB1100... so if you know would love to
compare...
Here
http://www.routerboard.com/pdf/routerboard_performance_tests.pdf
RB1100 says 121000 PPS @ 64 KBytes with Conntrack and Firewall (80 mbps) On and
11 PPS @ 1500Bytes (1.3 gbps)
But again, this is a
For the switch chip in the RB1100, I have some PPS numbers that I got
from testing with a Spirent test set (same gear Cisco, etc use to
determine their PPS numbers.)
Keep in mind I'm still learning it so there may be some problem in my
methodology. (Open SmartWindow, click test. :-) )
Half duplex
Half duplex eth6 to eth7. Eth6 is master-port for eth7.
Frame Size, PPS
64, 148810
This is 100M, isn't it ? 1Gbps connection could provide more, I think.
Rubens
WISPA Wants You! Join today!
Oh duh. That's line rate at 100M.
The chopped packets must have been a negotiation side effect from
going between 100M and Gig interfaces.
I feel much better about it now, and quite stilly to have missed that.
On Wed, Sep 8, 2010 at 11:54 PM, Rubens Kuhl rube...@gmail.com wrote:
Half duplex
41 matches
Mail list logo
