|
Thread Index [isp-bgp] "Transparent transit" between neighbors ebgp
Hello every body I try to connect two sides that run ebgp (between loopbacks interfaces) but I prefer that my networtk be "transparent". All the routers are Cisco. Regards... Jorge Quintana T:537-574242/8828104 Gestión NAP CUBADATA -----Mensaje original----- De: ISP-BGP Discussion List digest [mailto:isp-bgp@...] Enviado el: Friday, May 27, 2005 4:15 AM Para: isp-bgp digest recipients Asunto: isp-bgp digest: May 26, 2005 ISP-BGP Digest for Thursday, May 26, 2005. 1. Cisco Memory 2. Re: Cisco Memory 3. Re: Cisco alternatives for larger BGP routers? 4. RE: Cisco alternatives for larger BGP routers? 5. RE: Cisco alternatives for larger BGP routers? 6. RE: Cisco alternatives for larger BGP routers? 7. Re: Cisco alternatives for larger BGP routers? 8. Re: Cisco alternatives for larger BGP routers? 9. RE: Cisco alternatives for larger BGP routers? 10. Re: Cisco alternatives for larger BGP routers? ---------------------------------------------------------------------- Subject: Cisco Memory From: =?iso-8859-1?Q?Mathias_L=FCber?= <mat@....ch> Date: Thu, 26 May 2005 13:30:28 +0200 X-Message-Number: 1 Hi all, I want to upgrade my 2821 so it can take the full routing table + some prefixes of my peers. I know Cisco sells RAM-Upgrades, but they're quite expensive. Somewhere on the Internet I read, that it's possible to use =84standard DDR-Ram=93 in Cisco-Routers. Can someone tell me if that is true? I've seen a Picture of = Cisco-Certified RAM for the 2821 on which I could read: "PC2100, DDR, 266MHz, ECC". Thanks for your Help! Mat ---------------------------------------------------------------------- Subject: Re: Cisco Memory From: Doug Legge <Doug.Legge@BerkeleyGroup.co.uk> Date: Thu, 26 May 2005 12:49:41 +0100 X-Message-Number: 2 Mat There are a couple of companies I'm aware of that make memory that fits cisco routers and we have used some in the lab kit I'm not so sure about third Party certified memory though Cisco have always said to is if it didnly come through us or a recognised channel partner TAC wouldn't support it Doug -------------------------- Sent from my BlackBerry Wireless Handheld -----Original Message----- From: Mathias L=FCber <mat@....ch> To: isp-bgp@isp-bgp.com <isp-bgp@isp-bgp.com> Sent: Thu May 26 12:30:28 2005 Subject: [isp-bgp] Cisco Memory Hi all, I want to upgrade my 2821 so it can take the full routing table + some prefixes of my peers. I know Cisco sells RAM-Upgrades, but they're quite expensive. Somewhere on the Internet I read, that it's possible to use "standard DDR-Ram" in Cisco-Routers. Can someone tell me if that is true? I've seen a Picture of Cisco-Certified RAM for the 2821 on which I could read: "PC2100, DDR, 266MHz, ECC". Thanks for your Help! Mat Join: mailto:join-isp-bgp@isp-bgp.com To Remove: mailto:remove-isp-bgp@isp-bgp.com To unsubscribe via postal mail, please contact us at: Jupitermedia Corp. Attn: Discussion List Management 475 Park Avenue South New York, NY 10016 Please include the email address which you have been contacted with. Copyright 2005 Jupitermedia Corporation All Rights Reserved. ---------------------------------------------------------------------- Subject: Re: Cisco alternatives for larger BGP routers? From: James <james@...> Date: Thu, 26 May 2005 13:55:40 -0400 X-Message-Number: 3 On Wed, May 25, 2005 at 08:33:26AM -0400, John Lawrence wrote: > 7206/G1 Should defiantly get the job done. This would come with 4 gige > po= rts > and a 1GB of memory. NPE-G1 maxes out at 650Kpps, which is not even a full 1 Gigabit capability if you are being DDoSed with small sized packets. Dell PowerEdge 1850 running FreeBSD 4.11 with modified fastforwarding blows GigE out to physical limit at ~1.4Mpps. I would honestly go for a used Juniper M5 or pick up an M7i when you start doing more than 100Mbps of traffic and need to plan for scalability. Or if you are experienced enough to deal with open source software and caveats, get a nice FreeBSD box and optimize it :). -J >=20 > -----Original Message----- > From: Howard Jones [mailto:howard@...] > Sent: Wednesday, May 25, 2005 6:09 AM > To: isp-bgp@isp-bgp.com > Subject: [isp-bgp] Cisco alternatives for larger BGP routers? =20 >=20 > Hi, >=20 > I'm looking around for routers to run several large (totalling 100Mb+) > BGP feeds - what do other people use? It's not clear from Cisco's site > which of their new routers will actually do the job - having been bitten > before by underpowered Ciscos, I'm a little wary of them. For > alternatives, so far we've got FreeBSD+PCI-X+Flash (still performance > testing that out of curiousity), and Foundry NetIron. Are there others > in this market? >=20 > It'd be for 3 or 4 full views at most, plus a number of private peering > links. The ability to take 'normal' RAM would be a plus, too :-) Also > being able to back up a single unified text-based config file. > Interfaces could be limited to 100/1000BT and possibly 1000SX - it's > unlikely to need ATM or Sync lines. >=20 > Thanks in advance for any ideas... >=20 > Best Regards, >=20 > Howard >=20 > To unsubscribe via postal mail, please contact us at: > Jupitermedia Corp. > Attn: Discussion List Management > 475 Park Avenue South > New York, NY 10016 >=20 > Please include the email address which you have been contacted with. >=20 > Copyright 2005 Jupitermedia Corporation All Rights Reserved. >=20 >=20 > To unsubscribe via postal mail, please contact us at: > Jupitermedia Corp. > Attn: Discussion List Management > 475 Park Avenue South > New York, NY 10016 >=20 > Please include the email address which you have been contacted with. >=20 > Copyright 2005 Jupitermedia Corporation All Rights Reserved. --=20 James Jun Infrastructure and Technology Services TowardEX Technologies Office +1-617-459-4051 x179 | Mobile +1-978-394-2867 james@... | www.towardex.com ---------------------------------------------------------------------- Subject: RE: Cisco alternatives for larger BGP routers? From: "John Lawrence" <johnlist@...> Date: Thu, 26 May 2005 17:04:04 -0400 X-Message-Number: 4 Where are you getting your data from? The Cisco site says the G1 does 1Mpps, and I see I was wrong about the 4 ports it only has three built in. The 7206 routers are highly reliable and proven in a BGP environment. If you really need something bigger than the 1Mpps, you can get a 7600OSR router. It has a 256Gbps switching fabric and 30Mpps. So of the large Catalyst switches would do well also. -----Original Message----- From: James [mailto:james@...] Sent: Thursday, May 26, 2005 1:56 PM To: isp-bgp@isp-bgp.com Subject: Re: [isp-bgp] Cisco alternatives for larger BGP routers? On Wed, May 25, 2005 at 08:33:26AM -0400, John Lawrence wrote: > 7206/G1 Should defiantly get the job done. This would come with 4 gige ports > and a 1GB of memory. NPE-G1 maxes out at 650Kpps, which is not even a full 1 Gigabit capability if you are being DDoSed with small sized packets. Dell PowerEdge 1850 running FreeBSD 4.11 with modified fastforwarding blows GigE out to physical limit at ~1.4Mpps. I would honestly go for a used Juniper M5 or pick up an M7i when you start doing more than 100Mbps of traffic and need to plan for scalability. Or if you are experienced enough to deal with open source software and caveats, get a nice FreeBSD box and optimize it :). -J > > -----Original Message----- > From: Howard Jones [mailto:howard@...] > Sent: Wednesday, May 25, 2005 6:09 AM > To: isp-bgp@isp-bgp.com > Subject: [isp-bgp] Cisco alternatives for larger BGP routers? > > > Hi, > > I'm looking around for routers to run several large (totalling 100Mb+) > BGP feeds - what do other people use? It's not clear from Cisco's site > which of their new routers will actually do the job - having been > bitten before by underpowered Ciscos, I'm a little wary of them. For > alternatives, so far we've got FreeBSD+PCI-X+Flash (still performance > testing that out of curiousity), and Foundry NetIron. Are there others > in this market? > > It'd be for 3 or 4 full views at most, plus a number of private > peering links. The ability to take 'normal' RAM would be a plus, too > :-) Also being able to back up a single unified text-based config > file. Interfaces could be limited to 100/1000BT and possibly 1000SX - > it's unlikely to need ATM or Sync lines. > > Thanks in advance for any ideas... > > Best Regards, > > Howard > > To unsubscribe via postal mail, please contact us at: Jupitermedia > Corp. > Attn: Discussion List Management > 475 Park Avenue South > New York, NY 10016 > > Please include the email address which you have been contacted with. > > Copyright 2005 Jupitermedia Corporation All Rights Reserved. > > > To unsubscribe via postal mail, please contact us at: Jupitermedia > Corp. > Attn: Discussion List Management > 475 Park Avenue South > New York, NY 10016 > > Please include the email address which you have been contacted with. > > Copyright 2005 Jupitermedia Corporation All Rights Reserved. -- James Jun Infrastructure and Technology Services TowardEX Technologies Office +1-617-459-4051 x179 | Mobile +1-978-394-2867 james@... | www.towardex.com To unsubscribe via postal mail, please contact us at: Jupitermedia Corp. Attn: Discussion List Management 475 Park Avenue South New York, NY 10016 Please include the email address which you have been contacted with. Copyright 2005 Jupitermedia Corporation All Rights Reserved. ---------------------------------------------------------------------- Subject: RE: Cisco alternatives for larger BGP routers? From: alex@... Date: Thu, 26 May 2005 15:56:47 -0400 (EDT) X-Message-Number: 5 On Thu, 26 May 2005, John Lawrence wrote: > Where are you getting your data from? The Cisco site says the G1 does > 1Mpps, and I see I was wrong about the 4 ports it only has three built > in. The 7206 routers are highly reliable and proven in a BGP > environment. If you really need something bigger than the 1Mpps, you > can get a 7600OSR router. It has a 256Gbps switching fabric and > 30Mpps. So of the large Catalyst switches would do well also. Please don't try to teach James anything about routing. If James says 600kpps and cisco says 1Mpps, James has the correct number. :) 7206 are highly reliable and proven in a small non-ddos environment. 7206 (non-NPE-G1) is basically a PC-architecture router, all-software. NPE-G1 is hardware accelerated, but it maxes out at 600-700kpps under ddos (random src/dst). -alex ---------------------------------------------------------------------- Subject: RE: Cisco alternatives for larger BGP routers? From: "John Lawrence" <johnlist@...> Date: Thu, 26 May 2005 17:58:54 -0400 X-Message-Number: 6 >> Where are you getting your data from? The Cisco site says the G1 does >Please don't try to teach James anything about routing. If James says >600kpps and cisco says 1Mpps, James has the correct number. :) I was just asking where he gets his data from :) (As in real world test maybe, as I am sure there are better sources than the manufacturer...) ---------------------------------------------------------------------- Subject: Re: Cisco alternatives for larger BGP routers? From: "james edwards" <hackerwacker@...> Date: Thu, 26 May 2005 16:11:26 -0600 X-Message-Number: 7 > Where are you getting your data from? The Cisco site says the G1 does 1Mpps, > and I see I was wrong about the 4 ports it only has three built in. > The 7206 > routers are highly reliable and proven in a BGP environment. If you > really need something bigger than the 1Mpps, you can get a 7600OSR > router. It has a > 256Gbps switching fabric and 30Mpps. So of the large Catalyst switches would > do well also. Perhaps you should throw a goodly number of small UDP packets at a G1. The router will tip over way before Cisco's stated limits. James H. Edwards Routing and Security Administrator At the Santa Fe Office: Internet at Cyber Mesa jamesh@... noc@cybermesa.com http://www.cybermesa.com/ContactCM (505) 795-7101 ---------------------------------------------------------------------- Subject: Re: Cisco alternatives for larger BGP routers? From: James <james@...> Date: Thu, 26 May 2005 18:18:46 -0400 X-Message-Number: 8 On Thu, May 26, 2005 at 05:58:54PM -0400, John Lawrence wrote: > >> Where are you getting your data from? The Cisco site says the G1 > >> does > >Please don't try to teach James anything about routing. If James says > >600kpps and cisco says 1Mpps, James has the correct number. :) > > I was just asking where he gets his data from :) (As in real world > test maybe, as I am sure there are better sources than the > manufacturer...) > > Real-world experience, yup. Installation of NPE-G1 for gig-e transits at an ISP environment proved to be installing a maginot defense line when the network got DDoSed, before gig circuits even saturated. And I then learned the lesson: "Failure of Layer3 begins when $customer_use_requirements and $lets_build do not corelate." -J -- James Jun Infrastructure and Technology Services TowardEX Technologies Office +1-617-459-4051 x179 | Mobile +1-978-394-2867 james@... | www.towardex.com ---------------------------------------------------------------------- Subject: RE: Cisco alternatives for larger BGP routers? From: "John Lawrence" <johnlist@...> Date: Thu, 26 May 2005 18:31:10 -0400 X-Message-Number: 9 >Real-world experience, yup. Installation of NPE-G1 for gig-e transits >at an ISP environment proved to be installing a maginot defense line >when the network got DDoSed, before gig circuits even saturated. > >And I then learned the lesson: > >"Failure of Layer3 begins when $customer_use_requirements and >$lets_build do not corelate." > >-J Just curious, What did you move to now? A juniper or something else? ---------------------------------------------------------------------- Subject: Re: Cisco alternatives for larger BGP routers? From: James <james@...> Date: Thu, 26 May 2005 18:34:20 -0400 X-Message-Number: 10 On Thu, May 26, 2005 at 06:31:10PM -0400, John Lawrence wrote: > >Real-world experience, yup. Installation of NPE-G1 for gig-e > >transits at an ISP environment proved to be installing a maginot > >defense line when the network got DDoSed, before gig circuits even > >saturated. > > > >And I then learned the lesson: > > > >"Failure of Layer3 begins when $customer_use_requirements and > >$lets_build do not corelate." > > > >-J > > Just curious, What did you move to now? A juniper or something else? Yea, M7i from Juniper. -J -- James Jun Infrastructure and Technology Services TowardEX Technologies Office +1-617-459-4051 x179 | Mobile +1-978-394-2867 james@... | www.towardex.com --- END OF DIGEST _____________________________________________________ ** ISPCON Fall 2004 - Santa Clara Convention Center ** ** The ISP and WISP event - http://www.ispcon.com ** ** Fill your brain. Meet the people. Join the industry gathering. ** ________________________________________________________ --- You are currently subscribed to isp-bgp as: nap@tel.etecsa.cu To unsubscribe send a blank email to leave-isp-bgp-572285L@... To unsubscribe via postal mail, please contact us at: Jupitermedia Corp. Attn: Discussion List Management 475 Park Avenue South New York, NY 10016 Please include the email address which you have been contacted with. Copyright 2005 Jupitermedia Corporation All Rights Reserved. To unsubscribe via postal mail, please contact us at: Jupitermedia Corp. Attn: Discussion List Management 475 Park Avenue South New York, NY 10016 Please include the email address which you have been contacted with. Copyright 2005 Jupitermedia Corporation All Rights Reserved. <- Previous Message | Next Message -> Thread Index |
|
