nanog mailing list archives
Re: 10gbps peering subscriber switch recommendation
From: Mark Tinka <mark.tinka () seacom mu>
Date: Thu, 9 Jan 2014 06:58:31 +0200
On Wednesday, January 08, 2014 10:33:55 PM joel jaeggli wrote:
There are various reasons why one might take a full table on a switch with not not enough FIB, the important part of course being the part where you don't install them all.
In Metro-E deployments, this is a good use-case when the box is providing both IP and Ethernet services to the same or different customers out of the same chassis. It avoids having to run 2x eBGP sessions for the IP services (the first being point-to-point eBGP between the switch and the customer to get their routes into the network, and the second being an eBGP Multi-Hop between the customer and a "bigger" box in your core to send them the full BGP table). If a switch allows you to keep the routes in control plane RAM without downloading them into the FIB, you can maintain a single point-to-point eBGP session to the customer, including sending them the full table, provided you have a default route in the switch's FIB to handle actual data plane traffic flow from the customer upstream. Mark.
Attachment:
signature.asc
Description: This is a digitally signed message part.
Current thread:
- Re: 10gbps peering subscriber switch recommendation, (continued)
- Re: 10gbps peering subscriber switch recommendation Mark Tinka (Jan 06)
- Re: 10gbps peering subscriber switch recommendation Nitzan Tzelniker (Jan 06)
- Re: 10gbps peering subscriber switch recommendation Randy Bush (Jan 06)
- Re: 10gbps peering subscriber switch recommendation Mark Tinka (Jan 08)
- Re: 10gbps peering subscriber switch recommendation Nick Hilliard (Jan 07)
- Re: 10gbps peering subscriber switch recommendation Mark Tinka (Jan 08)
- Re: 10gbps peering subscriber switch recommendation Mark Tinka (Jan 08)
- Re: 10gbps peering subscriber switch recommendation joel jaeggli (Jan 08)
- Re: 10gbps peering subscriber switch recommendation Mark Tinka (Jan 08)