Not sure what you mean by padding - but our BGP feature set allows you
to weight paths. The rulesets you can use can be quite complex if you
need.
This is inserting an extra AS path in the info sent to a specific upstream
where I only have a small connection. Other ISP's behind my upstream would
then tend to prefer routes offered by my other upstream (with a bigger
connection) due to the AS path being shorter. This is a fairly common
procedure on Cisco's I believe. Your rule sets affect how I send data out,
but not in.
>Can the PM3 be upgraded to 32Mb?
Yes - but why would you want to?
If I do run BGP4 with several peers, and I take at least two full routes
16Mb would cut it pretty close on a PM3 with 16Mb. My IRX114 has two BGP
sessions taking full routes (48k) and only a static route. This leaves
approx. 3Mb free memory. The PM3 has a larger overhead (according to your
web site), would be running OSPF, and peering with approx. six ISP's in
addition. Would 16Mb cope with this and leave room for increased routes?
Memory is so cheap why bother cutting it close and taking a gamble?
>Lastly, and most cheekily, I may need to add a new BGP router for peering
>with about six other ISP's and handle two E1 feeds as well. I don't think
>Livingston have anything appropriate so I was considering the Cisco 3620.
>Do you think it will handle this or should I go for the 3640 (or even
>4700)?
A PM-3 should handle this easily. An IRX would probably handle it for
that matter, but it would slow down a bit while building the route tree.
Once the BGP was synced though it should be able to use it quickly.
As I already said, would an IRX with 16Mb handle all of this? My worry is
"should handle" and "would probably handle" from your above paragraph
leaves little confidence. What happens if they "don't handle"? My opinion
is that the IRX wouldn't handle it due to memory (and maybe processor), the
PM3 with 32Mb would be OK but the basic BGP options could cause problems.
Mark Johnson
MJohnson@gemsoft.net
-
To unsubscribe, email 'majordomo@livingston.com' with
'unsubscribe portmaster-users' in the body of the message.