<html><head></head><body style="word-wrap: break-word; -webkit-nbsp-mode: space; -webkit-line-break: after-white-space; color: rgb(0, 0, 0); font-size: 14px; font-family: Calibri, sans-serif; "><div>Macca, agree, it might not be a necessity for majority of people.</div><div><br></div><div>Need to understand what is best on a technical level first and obviously commercials will follow. </div><div><br></div><div>I haven't really seen anyone criticising what they are using from the options that I listed below which is sort of what I thought as well. They all can do the job which sort of makes it harder to decide which one to pick. You just need to look at what is going to best suite the infrastructure where the product will be deployed and obviously cater for future scalability.</div><div><br></div><div>Ankit.</div><div><br></div><span id="OLK_SRC_BODY_SECTION"><div style="font-family:Calibri; font-size:11pt; text-align:left; color:black; BORDER-BOTTOM: medium none; BORDER-LEFT: medium none; PADDING-BOTTOM: 0in; PADDING-LEFT: 0in; PADDING-RIGHT: 0in; BORDER-TOP: #b5c4df 1pt solid; BORDER-RIGHT: medium none; PADDING-TOP: 3pt"><span style="font-weight:bold">From: </span> McDonald Richards <<a href="mailto:McDonald.Richards@vocus.com.au">McDonald.Richards@vocus.com.au</a>><br><span style="font-weight:bold">Date: </span> Thursday, 14 February 2013 9:02 AM<br><span style="font-weight:bold">To: </span> "<a href="mailto:AusNOG@lists.ausnog.net">AusNOG@lists.ausnog.net</a>" <<a href="mailto:ausnog@lists.ausnog.net">ausnog@lists.ausnog.net</a>><br><span style="font-weight:bold">Subject: </span> Re: [AusNOG] powerful routers in core/edge routing/switching<br></div><div><br></div><div><meta http-equiv="Content-Type" content="text/html; charset=Windows-1252"><div style="word-wrap: break-word; -webkit-nbsp-mode: space; -webkit-line-break: after-white-space; color: rgb(0, 0, 0); font-size: 14px; font-family: Calibri, sans-serif; "><div>You're right – some times it's not enough, but I don't think that is the case for the majority of people who are carrying a full BGP table. If you can afford all that connectivity and caching, you can probably afford to buy a router that is suitable to
support it all (provided all the afore mentioned caching and connectivity is actually a requirement of the business).</div><div><br></div><div>Macca</div><div><br></div><div><br></div><span id="OLK_SRC_BODY_SECTION"><div style="font-family:Calibri; font-size:11pt; text-align:left; color:black; BORDER-BOTTOM: medium none; BORDER-LEFT: medium none; PADDING-BOTTOM: 0in; PADDING-LEFT: 0in; PADDING-RIGHT: 0in; BORDER-TOP: #b5c4df 1pt solid; BORDER-RIGHT: medium none; PADDING-TOP: 3pt"><span style="font-weight:bold">From: </span>Ankit Agrawal <<a href="mailto:ankitagrawals@gmail.com">ankitagrawals@gmail.com</a>><br><span style="font-weight:bold">Date: </span>Wednesday, 13 February 2013 12:50 PM<br><span style="font-weight:bold">To: </span>McDonald Richards <<a href="mailto:McDonald.Richards@vocus.com.au">McDonald.Richards@vocus.com.au</a>>, "<a href="mailto:AusNOG@lists.ausnog.net">AusNOG@lists.ausnog.net</a>" <<a href="mailto:ausnog@lists.ausnog.net">ausnog@lists.ausnog.net</a>><br><span style="font-weight:bold">Subject: </span>Re: [AusNOG] powerful routers in core/edge routing/switching<br></div><div><br></div><div><div style="word-wrap: break-word; -webkit-nbsp-mode: space; -webkit-line-break: after-white-space; color: rgb(0, 0, 0); font-size: 14px; font-family: Calibri, sans-serif; "><div>Sometimes default route is not enough and you do need to be aware of full routing table, including local peering to have optimum routing both from cost and user experience perspective. This is especially the case when you are not running a single IP feed
from one or two providers but infact have several transit links and peering/caching services. </div><div><br></div><div>Of course there are ways to overcome these issues, but then as you said, you end up in a web of network that only you can understand and support and its beyond documentation.</div><div><br></div><div>Ankit.</div><div><br></div><span id="OLK_SRC_BODY_SECTION"><div style="font-family:Calibri; font-size:11pt; text-align:left; color:black; BORDER-BOTTOM: medium none; BORDER-LEFT: medium none; PADDING-BOTTOM: 0in; PADDING-LEFT: 0in; PADDING-RIGHT: 0in; BORDER-TOP: #b5c4df 1pt solid; BORDER-RIGHT: medium none; PADDING-TOP: 3pt"><span style="font-weight:bold">From: </span>McDonald Richards <<a href="mailto:McDonald.Richards@vocus.com.au">McDonald.Richards@vocus.com.au</a>><br><span style="font-weight:bold">Date: </span>Wednesday, 13 February 2013 8:15 AM<br><span style="font-weight:bold">To: </span>"<a href="mailto:AusNOG@lists.ausnog.net">AusNOG@lists.ausnog.net</a>" <<a href="mailto:ausnog@lists.ausnog.net">ausnog@lists.ausnog.net</a>><br><span style="font-weight:bold">Subject: </span>Re: [AusNOG] powerful routers in core/edge routing/switching<br></div><div><br></div><div><div style="word-wrap: break-word; -webkit-nbsp-mode: space; -webkit-line-break: after-white-space; color: rgb(0, 0, 0); font-size: 14px; font-family: Calibri, sans-serif; "><div>What has port density, capacity or throughput got to do with routing?</div><div><br></div><div>Why do people with networks in a single geographic region, even if multi-homed, need to run default-fee? You know you can use a default route and a routing subset to achieve both redundancy and faster convergence? </div><div><br></div><div>I'm pretty happy with the current generation of hardware and where it sits price-wise. There have been a lot of good suggestions in the thread so I won't throw anymore in.There are cheaper and smarter ways to do things, but with smarts comes the risk that
nobody else can support your tangled web of network magic.</div><div><br></div><div>Macca</div><div><br></div><div><br></div><span id="OLK_SRC_BODY_SECTION"><div style="font-family:Calibri; font-size:11pt; text-align:left; color:black; BORDER-BOTTOM: medium none; BORDER-LEFT: medium none; PADDING-BOTTOM: 0in; PADDING-LEFT: 0in; PADDING-RIGHT: 0in; BORDER-TOP: #b5c4df 1pt solid; BORDER-RIGHT: medium none; PADDING-TOP: 3pt"><span style="font-weight:bold">From: </span>Joshua D'Alton <<a href="mailto:joshua@railgun.com.au">joshua@railgun.com.au</a>><br><span style="font-weight:bold">Date: </span>Wednesday, 13 February 2013 11:06 AM<br><span style="font-weight:bold">To: </span>"<a href="mailto:AusNOG@lists.ausnog.net">AusNOG@lists.ausnog.net</a>" <<a href="mailto:ausnog@lists.ausnog.net">ausnog@lists.ausnog.net</a>><br><span style="font-weight:bold">Subject: </span>Re: [AusNOG] powerful routers in core/edge routing/switching<br></div><div><br></div><div><div>The problem is routing has lagged far behind switching in terms of port density, capacity, throughput etc. Obviously a switching engine is peanuts compared to a routing engine, but it is exaggerated by the massive amounts of features they put in routing
engines.
<div><br></div><div>Seems to me we almost need a new breed of edge routers, ones that just talk BGP to other providers, and the current edge can stay as they are handling fancy things like MPLS which is really more of an internal routing, therefore switching, feature. Or
not :)<br><br></div></div></div></span></div></div>
_______________________________________________ AusNOG mailing list <a href="mailto:AusNOG@lists.ausnog.net">
AusNOG@lists.ausnog.net</a> <a href="http://lists.ausnog.net/mailman/listinfo/ausnog">
http://lists.ausnog.net/mailman/listinfo/ausnog</a> </span></div></div></span></div></div>
_______________________________________________
AusNOG mailing list
<a href="mailto:AusNOG@lists.ausnog.net">AusNOG@lists.ausnog.net</a>
<a href="http://lists.ausnog.net/mailman/listinfo/ausnog">http://lists.ausnog.net/mailman/listinfo/ausnog</a>
</span></body></html>