Re: BGP Growth projections

[Arie Vayner <arievayner () gmail com>]

I would second Ivan's comment.
Unless you are a major transit operator (which beats the "small ISP"
requirement), you don't really need a full view, and can do we a limited
view with a default route.

Arie

On Sat, Jul 11, 2009 at 10:27 AM, Ivan Pepelnjak <ip () ioshints info> wrote:

> Let me be the devil's advocate: why would you need full Internet routing?
> Taking reasonably sized neighborhoods of your upstreams (AS paths up to X
> AS
> numbers) plus a default to your best upstream might do the trick.
>
> Ivan
>
> http://www.ioshints.info/about
> http://blog.ioshints.info/
>
>
> > -----Original Message-----
> > From: Mark Radabaugh [mailto:mark () amplex net]
> > Sent: Friday, July 10, 2009 6:42 PM
> > To: nanog list
> > Subject: BGP Growth projections
> >
> > I'm looking for new core routers for a small ISP and having a
> > hard time
> > finding something appropriate and reasonably priced.   We don't have
> > huge traffic levels (<1Gb) and are mostly running Ethernet
> > interfaces to
> > upstreams rather than legacy  interfaces (when did OC3 become
> > legacy?).
> >
> > Lot's of choices for routers that can handle the existing BGP
> > tables - but not so much in small platforms (1-10Gb traffic)
> > if you assume that
> > IPv6 is going to explode the routing table in the next 5
> > years.    The
> > manufacturers still seem to think low traffic routers don't
> > need much memory or CPU.
> >
> > What projections are you using regarding the default free
> > zone over the next 5 years when picking new hardware?
> >
> > --
> >
> > Mark Radabaugh
> > Amplex
> > 419.837.5015 x21
> > mark () amplex net