nanog mailing list archives
Re: GigE Peering Router
From: Patrick W.Gilmore <patrick () ianai net>
Date: Mon, 10 Oct 2005 05:01:06 -0400
On Oct 10, 2005, at 2:53 AM, James Ashton wrote:
I would run from the 7206+NPE-G1 in this capacity. We have not had luckactually getting a gig worth of traffic flowing through them. Great small site router, but not much on the throughput side at all.
We are currently pushing 950+ Mbps through several 7301s. (The 7301 is essentially an NPE-G1 in a box by itself.)
This traffic is heavily outbound. Several NAPs have the router, some with 100+ peers. We do not have a lot of ACLs or other CPU-eating stuff in the config.
-- TTFN, patrick
________________________________From: owner-nanog () merit edu [mailto:owner-nanog () merit edu] On Behalf OfNetwork Lists Sent: Tuesday, October 04, 2005 1:40 PM To: nanog () merit edu Subject: GigE Peering Router Hello, I was looking for some opinions on Cisco vs. Foundry (specifically Cisco's NPE-G1 vs a NetIron 4802). The application is mainly content delivery - outbound heavy traffic with an emphasis on quality of delivery. Basically I'm looking at the 4802 because we're able to provision GigEfor all the providers, so we don't really need an architecture that can support OC-type interfaces. The size is also attractive for some of oursmaller PoPs. I'm also intereted in failover/hot-standby capabilities on the Foundry as we have had much experience with them. Best, Lance
Current thread:
- GigE Peering Router Network Lists (Oct 04)
- <Possible follow-ups>
- RE: GigE Peering Router James Ashton (Oct 09)
- Re: GigE Peering Router Patrick W . Gilmore (Oct 10)