On 22 June 2016 at 22:04, David Charlebois wrote:
> In our case, we advertise a single /24 from our head office to 2 upstream
> providers. The routing is %100 for redundancy.
>
The full table is in many cases overrated. If both your transits are good
service providers, you do not gain much by t
> On Jun 22, 2016, at 23:32 , Mark Tinka wrote:
>
>
>
> On 23/Jun/16 08:22, Owen DeLong wrote:
>
>> Unless the difference is HUGE, you usually don’t really care.
>
> Agree.
>
> We are in that scenario, and mostly don't care as well. There is enough
> link capacity
>
>
>> Who said anything
On 23/Jun/16 08:22, Owen DeLong wrote:
> Unless the difference is HUGE, you usually don’t really care.
Agree.
We are in that scenario, and mostly don't care as well. There is enough
link capacity
> Who said anything about a ring. He is advertising a /24 to 2 upstream
> providers.
Which is
> On Jun 22, 2016, at 23:17 , Mark Tinka wrote:
>
>
>
> On 23/Jun/16 08:07, Owen DeLong wrote:
>
>> If it’s 100% for redundancy, why not just ECMP defaults and not take a full
>> table?
>
> Well, firstly, ring length may be different on either end. So you can't
> always guarantee ECMP of tr
On 23/Jun/16 08:07, Owen DeLong wrote:
> If it’s 100% for redundancy, why not just ECMP defaults and not take a full
> table?
Well, firstly, ring length may be different on either end. So you can't
always guarantee ECMP of traffic to/from the device (without much
difficulty such as MPLS-TE).
If it’s 100% for redundancy, why not just ECMP defaults and not take a full
table?
That will allow you to use a MUCH cheaper router with a much simpler
configuration.
Owen
> On Jun 22, 2016, at 13:04 , David Charlebois wrote:
>
> Hello
> I'm curious about the overall recommendation when sele
On 22/Jun/16 22:04, David Charlebois wrote:
> Hello
> I'm curious about the overall recommendation when selecting a small class
> BGP router for IPv6 (with 1gig ports). We can see the current IPv4 routing
> table is around 615k routes and the IPv6 routing table is sitting around
> ~31k routes.
>
Hello
I'm curious about the overall recommendation when selecting a small class
BGP router for IPv6 (with 1gig ports). We can see the current IPv4 routing
table is around 615k routes and the IPv6 routing table is sitting around
~31k routes.
In our case, we advertise a single /24 from our head offi
On 20/Jun/16 16:07, Baldur Norddahl wrote:
>
>
> On 2016-06-20 08:50, Mark Tinka wrote:
>> We don't run l3vpn's for infrastructure requirements. We only run
>> them if a customer wants an l3vpn service. Mark.
>
> For a long time we only had one l3vpn customer: our self. It is a good
> way to sep
On 2016-06-20 08:50, Mark Tinka wrote:
We don't run l3vpn's for infrastructure requirements. We only run them
if a customer wants an l3vpn service. Mark.
For a long time we only had one l3vpn customer: our self. It is a good
way to separate the control network from the internet. So our conf
On 19/Jun/16 10:17, Saku Ytti wrote:
> But I do think, that if L3 to the edge had no commercial problems,
> people would universally choose to do it. L2VPN is just workaround to
> a commercial problem. Sometimes (residential access) to a technical
> problem (how do I share my IPv4 space effectiv
On 18/Jun/16 21:55, Baldur Norddahl wrote:
> Just want to point out that there is no eBGP multi-hop involved. These are
> L2 tunnels so the devices appear to be directly connected on the layer 3
> level.
Agree, but there is still a disconnect between what the network knows is
the actual physica
On 18/Jun/16 21:31, Baldur Norddahl wrote:
> Is the claim about fewer moving parts actually true? Yes if you are
> comparing to a plain native single-stack network with IPv4 (or IPv6)
> directly on the wire. But we are doing MPLS, so in our case it is L2VPN vs
> L3VPN. Both will reroute using th
On 18/Jun/16 17:37, James Jun wrote:
> One issue with pushing IP transit (L3-wise) with small boxes down to the
> metro is that if a particular customer comes under attack, any DDoS in
> excess of 10-30 Gbps is going to totally destroy the remote site down to
> the floor and then some, until NOC
On 18 June 2016 at 18:37, James Jun wrote:
Hey,
> One issue with pushing IP transit (L3-wise) with small boxes down to the
> metro is that if a particular customer comes under attack, any DDoS in
> excess of 10-30 Gbps is going to totally destroy the remote site down to
> the floor and then some
On Sat, Jun 18, 2016 at 01:04:49PM +0200, Mark Tinka wrote:
>
> Centralizing is just horrible, but that's just me. The goal is to make
> all these unreliable boxes work together to offer a reliable service to
> your customers, so making them too inter-dependent on each other has the
> potential to
On Fri, Jun 17, 2016, at 12:43, Saku Ytti wrote:
> Last I checked you can't commit/replace configuration in VRP. Has this
> changed? Can you give it full new config and expect it to figure out
> how to apply the new config without breaking existing?
... later...
> Yeah it's best I've seen. 8-10k
On 18 June 2016 at 13:04, Mark Tinka wrote:
> We push IP/MPLS all the way into the Metro-E Access using a team of
> Cisco ASR920's and ME3600X's. The value of being able to instantiate an
> IP service or BGP session directly in the Metro-E Access simplifies
> network operations a great deal for u
On 18 June 2016 at 13:07, Mark Tinka wrote:
> > Our PoPs are connected in a ring topology (actually multiple rings). If a
> > link goes down somewhere, or an intermediate device crashes, the L2VPN
> will
> > reconfigure and find another path.
>
> Which is what would happen anyway with your IGP if
On 16/Jun/16 23:24, Baldur Norddahl wrote:
> The ZTE 5952E (routing switch) can do L3VPN including BGP. But it is
> limited to about 30k routes. It is usable if the customer wants a default
> route solution, but not if he wants the full default free zone.
Might be worthwhile to ask ZTE to devel
On 16/Jun/16 22:27, Saku Ytti wrote:
> I'm not saying it's bad solution, I know lot of people do it. But I
> think people only do it, because L3 at port isn't offered by vendors
> at lower rates.
A lot of people did it because because there really wasn't a cheap,
dense solution until about 2010
On 16/Jun/16 21:36, Baldur Norddahl wrote:
> Hi
>
> If I need to speak BGP with a customer that only has 1G I will simply make
> a MPLS L2VPN to one of my edge routers. We use the ZTE 5952E switch with
> 48x 1G plus 4x 10G for the L2VPN end point. If that is not enough the ZTE
> 8900 platform wi
On 17 June 2016 at 16:25, Colton Conor wrote:
> Thats some extreme level of unheard discount to get a full MX80 for 3K.
Yeah it's best I've seen. 8-10k isn't anything special.
--
++ytti
Thats some extreme level of unheard discount to get a full MX80 for 3K.
On Fri, Jun 17, 2016 at 8:20 AM, Saku Ytti wrote:
> On 17 June 2016 at 16:17, Colton Conor wrote:
> > Whats the price piont though? Is that the router he was saying in 15K
> range?
>
> I'm all Shania Twain on 15k.
>
> I've
On 17 June 2016 at 16:17, Colton Conor wrote:
> Whats the price piont though? Is that the router he was saying in 15K range?
I'm all Shania Twain on 15k.
I've seen people buy MX80 for bit over 3k, this isn't that much
denser. 5k would impress me much.
--
++ytti
Whats the price piont though? Is that the router he was saying in 15K
range?
On Fri, Jun 17, 2016 at 8:05 AM, Saku Ytti wrote:
> On 17 June 2016 at 15:58, Colton Conor wrote:
> > What size FIB/RIB table does that Huawei have?
>
> It has 25M RIB and 4M FIB. Same Solar NPU as their largest kit.
>
On 17 June 2016 at 15:58, Colton Conor wrote:
> What size FIB/RIB table does that Huawei have?
It has 25M RIB and 4M FIB. Same Solar NPU as their largest kit.
--
++ytti
What size FIB/RIB table does that Huawei have?
On Fri, Jun 17, 2016 at 5:10 AM, Harald F. Karlsen wrote:
> On 16.06.2016 09:51, Saku Ytti wrote:
>
>> Hey,
>>
>> I've been bit poking around trying to find reasonable option for 1GE
>> L3 full BGP table aggregator. It seems vendors are mostly pushi
On 17 June 2016 at 13:10, Harald F. Karlsen wrote:
> What about the Huawei NE20E-S2F/NE40E-M2F?
> 4 * SFP+ and 40 * SFP fixed ports and two PICs with either 4*SFP+ or 1*QSFP
> each. Decent FIB. Not really sure about the IPFIX/sflow thought. Pricing
> seems very aggresive on these devices as well.
On 16.06.2016 09:51, Saku Ytti wrote:
Hey,
I've been bit poking around trying to find reasonable option for 1GE
L3 full BGP table aggregator. It seems vendors are mostly pushing
Satellite/Fusion for this application.
I don't really like the added complexity and tight coupling
Satellite/Fusion f
On 16 June 2016 at 22:27, Saku Ytti wrote:
> On 16 June 2016 at 22:36, Baldur Norddahl
> wrote:
>
> Hey,
>
> > If I need to speak BGP with a customer that only has 1G I will simply
> make
> > a MPLS L2VPN to one of my edge routers. We use the ZTE 5952E switch with
> > 48x 1G plus 4x 10G for the
On 16 June 2016 at 22:36, Baldur Norddahl wrote:
Hey,
> If I need to speak BGP with a customer that only has 1G I will simply make
> a MPLS L2VPN to one of my edge routers. We use the ZTE 5952E switch with
> 48x 1G plus 4x 10G for the L2VPN end point. If that is not enough the ZTE
> 8900 platfor
Hi
If I need to speak BGP with a customer that only has 1G I will simply make
a MPLS L2VPN to one of my edge routers. We use the ZTE 5952E switch with
48x 1G plus 4x 10G for the L2VPN end point. If that is not enough the ZTE
8900 platform will provide a ton of ports that can do MPLS.
The tunnel i
On 6/16/16 12:51 AM, Saku Ytti wrote:
> Hey,
>
> I've been bit poking around trying to find reasonable option for 1GE
> L3 full BGP table aggregator. It seems vendors are mostly pushing
> Satellite/Fusion for this application.
>
> I don't really like the added complexity and tight coupling
> Sate
Hello Saku,
> I've casually talked with other people, and it seems I'm not really
> alone here. My dream box would be 96xSFP + 2xQSFP28, with pretty much
> full edge features (BGP, LDP, ISIS, +1M FIB, +5M RIB, per-interface
> VLANs, ipfix or sflow, at least per-port QoS with shaper, martini
> pse
Hey,
I've been bit poking around trying to find reasonable option for 1GE
L3 full BGP table aggregator. It seems vendors are mostly pushing
Satellite/Fusion for this application.
I don't really like the added complexity and tight coupling
Satellite/Fusion forces me. I'd prefer standards based rou
36 matches
Mail list logo
