Force10 E Series at the edge?

Tom Daly tom at dyn.com
Tue Mar 27 22:59:11 CDT 2012


Brent,
Your options include, for smaller boxes:

- Brocade CER series, but make sure you the -RT versions due to RAM (haven't tried, though)
- Juniper MX (MX80 is working well for us)
- Cisco ASR1006 (heard a lot about BGP price issues)

But for 300mb/sec, what not OpenBSD + Quagga?

Tom



----- Original Message -----
> I was very happy with the E300 as a data center core switch handling
> multiple full feeds (around 15) with about 10x the traffic you are
> talking about.  The only problem I had was that Force10 didn't have
> a useful (basically forklift) upgrade to get more IPv4 prefixes, and
> the more I talked to them and the more I showed them the graphs
> demonstrating what we'd need for prefix space assuming even the most
> conservative assumptions at depletion, the more I realized they
> really Did Not Get It.  In fact, their brand new architecture
> recently announced had only 500k prefixes allowed, at a time that
> the Juniper MX platform handled 2million easily.
> 
> So I would be fine using Force10 again, given the following changes:
> 	1. Large limits on IP prefixes allowed
> 	2. Reallocation of useless memory from stupid things like MAC tables
> 	to prefixes (data centers have very few MACs, very many prefixes)
> 	3. Command line logging
> 
> The units worked great at failover, never had any problems gracefully
> failing over from one RP to another, but if you have to cold boot
> them for any reason it takes like 5 minutes :(
> 
> On Mar 27, 2012, at 2:21 PM, Roberts, Brent wrote:
> > Is anyone running an E300 Series Chassis at the internet edge with
> > multiple Full BGP feeds? 95th percent would be about 300 meg of
> > traffic. BGP session count would be between 2 and 4 Peers.
> > 6k internal Prefix count as it stands right now. Alternative are
> > welcome. Thought about the ASR1006 but I need some local switching
> > as well.
> > 
> > Full requirements include
> > Full internet Peering over GigE Links.
> > Fully Redundant Power
> > Redundant "Supervisor/Route Processor"
> > Would prefer a Small Chassis unit. (under 10u)
> > Would also prefer a single unit as opposed to a two smaller units.
> > 
> > 
> > ________________________________
> > 
> > This email and any attached files may contain confidential and/or
> > privileged material and is intended solely for the use of the
> > person to whom it is addressed. Any review, retransmission,
> > dissemination or other use of or taking of any action in reliance
> > upon this information by persons or entities other than the
> > intended recipient is prohibited. If you received this in error,
> > please contact the sender immediately and delete it and all
> > attachments from your computer. Progressive Solutions is not
> > liable for any errors or omissions in the content or transmission
> > of this email.
> 
> --
> Jo Rhett
> Net Consonance : consonant endings by net philanthropy, open source
> and other randomness
> 
> 



More information about the NANOG mailing list