Failover how much complexity will it add?
adel at baklawasecrets.com
adel at baklawasecrets.com
Mon Nov 9 14:21:52 UTC 2009
Actually thinking about this, I still need to understand the implications of not taking a full routing table to my setup. So what is the likely impact going to be if I take partial instead of full routing table. Would appreciate any feedback on this. My organisation is only looking at using BGP as a means of failover between two separate upstream ISPs. We are not an ISP.
On Mon 1:32 PM , adel at baklawasecrets.com wrote:
> I've taken your advice and decided to reconsider my requirement for a
> full routing table. I believe I'm being greedy and a partial table will be
> sufficient. With regards to Linux/BSD, its not the CLI of quagga that will
> be an issue, rather the sysadmin and lack of supporting infrastructure for
> Linux boxes within the organisation. So things like package management,
> syslog servers, monitoring, understanding of security issues etc. I don't
> want to leave them with a linux/bsd solution that they won't be able to
> maintain/manage effectively when I am gone.
> Thanks for your comments. Look forward to hearing which solutions come
> back into the mix having dropped the full routing table requirement.
> On Mon 11:45 AM , Joe Greco wrote:
> > > > > Basically the organisation that I'm working for will not have the
> > skills
> > > > > in house to support a linux or bsd box. They will have trouble
> > > > > with supporting the BGP configuration, however I don't think they
> > will be
> > > > > happy with me if I leave them with a linux box when they
> > > > > don't have linux/unix resource internally. At least with a Cisco
> > > > > Juniper they are familiar with IOS and it won't be too foreign to
> > them.
> > > > On Sun 11:47 PM , Dale Rumph wrote:
> > > >
> > > > What does your budget look like? A pair of Cisco 7246vxr's with
> > > > sitting on the edge of the network would be very effective and
> > allow
> > > > expansion. Or you could go up to the 7609. However this gear may be
> > > > slightly overkill. You might be ok with a 3660 enterprise and a ton
> > of
> > > > ram. I have done single sessions on them but not with the level of
> > your
> > > > looking for.
> > > >
> > > > Just my 2c
> > > You will laugh, but the budget at the moment looks like Â£13k.
> > > Impossible? Do only linux and openbsd solutions remain in the mix
> > > for this pittance?
> > No, you have the buy-it-off-eBay solutions as well. "Beware the
> > fakes."
> > If they're familiar with IOS, then they can be familiar with Quagga
> > about as easily as they could be familiar with a switch or other
> > network gizmo that had a Ciscoesque CLI but wasn't actually Cisco.
> > You've painted yourself into a corner. I have a word for you:
> > Reconsider.
> > I don't care what you reconsider, but reconsider something. You can
> > reconsider taking BGP with a full table. You can reconsider Quagga.
> > Or you can reconsider your budget. This is the end result of the
> > "pick any two" problem.
> > Most end user organizations have no need of full routes in BGP. To
> > try to take them dooms TCAM-based equipment at some future point,
> > though if you have a lot of money to throw at it, you can make that
> > point be years in the future. It is essentially planned obsolescence.
> > If you discard the requirement for full routes, you open up a bunch
> > of reasonably-priced possibilities.
> > Finding someone knowledgeable in BSD or Linux isn't that rough.
> > Unlike a Cisco 76xx router, the hardest part of a Quagga-based
> > solution is finding the right mix of hardware and software at the
> > beginning. PC hardware has a lot going for AND against it. There is
> > no reason you can't make a good router out of a PC. If you buy the
> > Cisco software-based routers, you're essentially buying a prepackaged
> > version, except that it'll be specced to avoid any real competition
> > with their low-end TCAM-based offerings. A contemporary PC can
> > easily route gigabits. Vyatta makes what I hear is a fantastic
> > canned solution of some sort, for a reasonable cost, and they will
> > sell just software or software/hardware. If you really can't put
> > it together yourself, there's someone to do it for you.
> > Reconsidering your budget is probably the most painful thing to do,
> > but also opens up the "just buy big Cisco" option. I think my point
> > here would have to be that what you're looking for would have needed
> > big Cisco... ten years ago. Now, dealing with a few hundred megs of
> > traffic, that's not that big a deal, the thing that's killing you is
> > the BGP table size.
> > Your best option may be to see if you can settle for partial routes
> > plus a default.
> > ... JG
> > --
> > Joe Greco - sol.net Network Services - Milwaukee, WI -
> http://www.sol.net 
> > 
> > "We call it the 'one bite at the apple' rule. Give me one chance [and]
> > then I
> > won't contact you again." - Direct Marketing Ass'n position on e-mail
> > spam(CNN)
> > With 24 million small businesses in the US alone, that's way too many
> > apples.
> > Links:
> > ------
> >  http://webmail.123-reg.co.uk/parse.php?redirect=http://www.sol.net
>  http://webmail.123-reg.co.uk/parse.php?redirect=http://www.sol.net
More information about the NANOG