Cisco Router best for full BGP on a sub 5K bidget 7500 7200 or other vendor ?

Mon Apr 26 05:31:25 UTC 2004

Hmm; why do you want to keep BGP on a switch  instead of installing separate
router? Do you have a very wide uplink (uplinks)?

// I do not object an idea.

>
> Yes. I've been looking at it and a 7505 with a 3550 behind it seems the
> way to go for our type of operation.
>
> As a cost cutting alternative - has anyone played with the 2900 XL
> series using sub interfaces to turn them into virtual router ports ? or
> vlan groups ?
> Is it better to just buy a 3550 ?
>
> Alexander Hagen
> Etheric Networks Incorporated, A California Corporation
> 527 Sixth Street No 371261
> Montara CA 94037
> Main Line: (650)-728-3375
> Direct Line: (650) 728-3086
> Cell: (650) 740-0650 (Does not work at our office in Montara)
> Home: (Emgcy or weekends) 650-728-5820
> fax: (650) 240-1750
> http://www.etheric.net
>
> -----Original Message-----
> From: Mikael Abrahamsson [mailto:swmike at swm.pp.se]
> Sent: Sunday, April 25, 2004 5:09 AM
> To: Alexander Hagen
> Cc: 'Robert E. Seastrom'; 'Tom (UnitedLayer)'; nanog at merit.edu
> Subject: RE: Cisco Router best for full BGP on a sub 5K bidget 7500 7200
> or other vendor ?
>
> On Sun, 25 Apr 2004, Alexander Hagen wrote:
>
> > 1) Catalyst 6006 w/ CATALYST 6000 SUPERVISOR ENGINE 1-A, 2GE, PLUS
> MSFC
> > & PFC
>
> Yuck. Unless you have very few flows you do not want to use MSFC1/PFC1.
>
> This platform would be good for a file server with few but highspeed
> flows.
>
> > This system costs somewhere around 1300.00 more than a:
> >  Cisco 7505 w RSP4 256 Plus (2) VIP 2-50/128 and 3 PA-FE-TX
> >
> > Obviously the Catalyst is a better unit. But will it be as "burned in"
> > and robust as the venerable 7505 ?
>
> The 7505 will probably handle lots of flows massively better than the
> SUP1A.
>
> -- 
> Mikael Abrahamsson    email: swmike at swm.pp.se
>