nanog mailing list archives

Re: Q: Sizes of Existing and Planned Fully Meshed IPSEC VPN (Tunnel Mode)


From: "Tim Bass" <bass () silkroad com>
Date: Tue, 23 Oct 2001 21:29:41 -0400


Yes.  Fully meshed.  N(N-1)/2 tunnels.....................

Is around 5995  tunnels if I remember the correct formula
off the top of my head.  Straight IPSEC tunnels.  No MPLS.
No GRE.   Just imagine a corporate customer to a big ISP,
each site a single homed stub AS tunneling nicely across the
ISP to other sites. Adding a few more sites monthly.

Have not had a problem reported with routers dropping and
long-time-lags with tunnels being re-established.     Would
be interested in hearing from large ISPs to see who has
a running N(N-1)./2 fully meshed VPN where N>110 and
what potential problems they have and how to mitigate against
problems.    Thanks!


Finest Regards, Tim

www.silkroad.com

----- Original Message -----
From: "Rodney Thayer" <rodney () tillerman to>
To: <nanog () merit edu>
Sent: Tuesday, October 23, 2001 7:54 PM
Subject: Fwd: Q: Sizes of Existing and Planned Fully Meshed IPSEC VPN
(Tunnel Mode)



I assume "fully meshed" means each node connects to each other
node, so each node has 109 tunnels (110 total).
I also assume "Cisco IPSEC based VPN" means IPsec (rfc 2401/2411/etc.)
and not MPLS-only.

In that case, 120 is not 'large' according to the vendor
community -- 'large' starts at around 5000 tunnels.  I suspect that,
in nature (or in the land of the Nanogians) that under 1000 is
more like a 'large' one.

On the other hand, drop one box with 119 tunnels set up and
restart it and time how long it takes to re-initiate all 119
tunnels, and you may very well be unhappy.

From: "Tim Bass" <bass () silkroad com>

We have a Cisco IPSEC based VPN with over 110 edge routers
in a full tunnel-mode mesh, mostly 'big hunking routers' with
average CPU utilization under 15 percent.     The VPN is
controlled by a single organization, under centralized admin.



Current thread: