Why are you a "small start-up" and needing 600M-1G of pipe, and from 3x carriers? You can't use 150-200M via GigE ports and scale as needed (assuming you aren't bound to a SONET loop)?
We started our IP backbone in 2005 with 3x 300M connections on 6509/maxed-Sup2s with 85% BGP tables and 6516-GBIC blades. All of our drops were GBE or 10/100, no SONET, no fancy stuff. 3x nodes meshed. Redundancy was our only mandatory requirement. Everything worked well, until we started getting more sophisticated. This setup now could run $5-6k/node if you shop around. Since then, prices have dropped on more powerful stuff and persistent EOL progression, so if you can pull off funds for Sup720-3BXL engines, you've got options for 10G, IP6, MPLS, and full tables from day one, although 10G ports are not cheap (for a shoestring one, at least). I would consider Sup720-3Bs as a minimum for that platform, considering EOL and features. -D On Wed, Jul 22, 2009 at 10:57 AM, R. Benjamin Kessler<r...@mnsginc.com> wrote: > On 7/22/09 9:48 AM, Jim Wininger <jwinin...@indianafiber.net> wrote: > >> What do you consider a "small start-up ISP"? What kind of upstream >> connectivity are you considering (or at least falls under the category > of >> small isp) bandwidht, bgp etc? > > two or three upstreams - OC-12 to 1G to each (BGP full tables) > three "POPs" meshed together > >>> On 7/22/09 9:39 AM, "R. Benjamin Kessler" <r...@mnsginc.com> wrote: > >>> There has been a lot of good feedback regarding the deficiencies of > the >>> 7600 platform... >>> >>> So, the new question is: what platforms should a small, start-up ISP >>> consider when looking to provide Ethernet services to their > customers? >>> >>> - Scalability - 100M, 1G, 10G access speeds (backplane limitations, >>> number of ports per chassis, etc.) >>> - MPLS Capabilities >>> - QoS Features >>> - Ease of configuration and support, etc. (finding NOC talent, > scripting >>> tools, etc.) >>> - Software/Hardware "stability" and "longevity" (we don't want > something >>> that is brand-new and therefore "buggy" nor do we want something that > is >>> going EOL next year) >>> - Bang for the buck (both acquisition and on-going maintenance and >>> support) >>> >>> I'm sure I'm missing a lot of things...are there any good > presentations >>> from previous NANOG meetings that one should review? >>> >>> Thanks in advance, >>> >>> Ben >>> > > >
