«

Hello-
So I'm looking to get my hands on a 3750 EMI unit for the purpose of doing
BGP to 3 or 4 ISPs. I intend to have about about 3 dozen machines directly
attached to it (by way of trunking to 2950 switches), and probably four to
eight /24's. Is this unit going to be sufficient? I've used the SMI
version for doing static routing before, but I'd like to make the jump to
BGP in order to add redundancy. If I wanted to go with something beefier,
what would be the next logical step up from the 3750s?

Here's a bit more detail as to what I want to do...

I'd like to have one main ISP which carries most of my traffic and will
provide me with little /24's which I will route myself. I also plan to
have 2-3 other smaller ISPs whom I only plan to use as "paid peering" (I'm
buying transit to them, but the only traffic I want to come in on those
links are direct customers of those ISPs.) Beyond this requirement,
nothing special. I intend to use the ACL and VLAN maps as I have on the
SMI switches will doing static routing.

Thanks for your help.

[Stevie]

| So I'm looking to get my hands on a 3750 EMI unit for the purpose of doing
| BGP to 3 or 4 ISPs. I intend to have about about 3 dozen machines directly
| attached to it (by way of trunking to 2950 switches), and probably four to
| eight /24's. Is this unit going to be sufficient? I've used the SMI
| version for doing static routing before, but I'd like to make the jump to
| BGP in order to add redundancy. If I wanted to go with something beefier,
| what would be the next logical step up from the 3750s?

The 3750 should handle your needs just fine, as long as you don't need
a full Internet routing table.

Steinar Haug, Nethelp consulting,

On 03.04.2005 07:46 Steinar Haug wrote

> [Stevie]
>
> | So I'm looking to get my hands on a 3750 EMI unit for the purpose of doing
> | BGP to 3 or 4 ISPs. I intend to have about about 3 dozen machines directly
> | attached to it (by way of trunking to 2950 switches), and probably four to
> | eight /24's. Is this unit going to be sufficient? I've used the SMI
> | version for doing static routing before, but I'd like to make the jump to
> | BGP in order to add redundancy. If I wanted to go with something beefier,
> | what would be the next logical step up from the 3750s?
>
> The 3750 should handle your needs just fine, as long as you don't need
> a full Internet routing table.
>

As you are connecting all machines by ways of 2950 trunks, you may want
to look into a "real" router as well. Anything in the 18xx (up to 384MB
RAM) or 28xx (up ro 1024 MB RAM) range should fit your needs and allow
for sufficient upstreams.



Arnold
--
Arnold Nipper, AN45

(Steinar Haug) wrote in
news::

> The 3750 should handle your needs just fine, as long as you don't need
> a full Internet routing table.

What is meant by a "full Internet routing table"? I've never done BGP
before, so I'm not quite sure what is meant by this. If I didn't have a
full table, would some parts of the internet be unroutable?

Arnold Nipper <arnold-> wrote in
news:d2oef1$mfg$:

> On 03.04.2005 07:46 Steinar Haug wrote
>
>> The 3750 should handle your needs just fine, as long as you don't
>> need a full Internet routing table.
>
> As you are connecting all machines by ways of 2950 trunks, you may
> want to look into a "real" router as well. Anything in the 18xx (up to
> 384MB RAM) or 28xx (up ro 1024 MB RAM) range should fit your needs and
> allow for sufficient upstreams.

What advantages would these have over a 3750? Is an all-in-one approach of
the 3750 not the right way to be going?

"Stevie" <> wrote in message
news: om...
> (Steinar Haug) wrote in
> news::
>
>> The 3750 should handle your needs just fine, as long as you don't need
>> a full Internet routing table.
>
> What is meant by a "full Internet routing table"? I've never done BGP
> before, so I'm not quite sure what is meant by this. If I didn't have a
> full table, would some parts of the internet be unroutable?

No, because you would still have a default route to fall back on. Looking
at your requirements your first post, I would say you will not be using the
full internet routing table.

On 03.04.2005 18:30 Stevie wrote

> Arnold Nipper <arnold-> wrote in
> news:d2oef1$mfg$:
>
>> On 03.04.2005 07:46 Steinar Haug wrote
>>
>>> The 3750 should handle your needs just fine, as long as you don't
>>> need a full Internet routing table.
>>
>> As you are connecting all machines by ways of 2950 trunks, you may
>> want to look into a "real" router as well. Anything in the 18xx (up to
>> 384MB RAM) or 28xx (up ro 1024 MB RAM) range should fit your needs and
>> allow for sufficient upstreams.
>
> What advantages would these have over a 3750? Is an all-in-one approach of
> the 3750 not the right way to be going?

IMHO if you need a router, take a router. If you need a switch, take a
switch. From what you wrote ("I intend to have about about 3 dozen
machines directly attached to it (by way of trunking to 2950 switches)")
I've concluded that you actually need a router and not a switch with
routing functionality.

As Steinar already pointed out, the 3750 is not suited to take a full
routing table (128MB RAM only), hence not well suited as a "real"
upstream router.



Arnold
--
Arnold Nipper, AN45

"Wayne" <> wrote in
news:d3V3e.135868$Ze3.106432@attbi_s51:

> "Stevie" <> wrote in message
> news: om...
>> (Steinar Haug) wrote in
>> news::
>>
>>> The 3750 should handle your needs just fine, as long as you don't
>>> need a full Internet routing table.
>>
>> What is meant by a "full Internet routing table"? I've never done
>> BGP before, so I'm not quite sure what is meant by this. If I didn't
>> have a full table, would some parts of the internet be unroutable?
>
> No, because you would still have a default route to fall back on.
> Looking at your requirements your first post, I would say you will
> not be using the full internet routing table.

So how do I tell my router how much of a routing table do I want? Also,
does my lack of a full view limit the number of ways a customer on the
internet can reach me?

On 03.04.2005 18:43 Wayne wrote

> "Stevie" <> wrote in message
> news: om...
>> (Steinar Haug) wrote in
>> news::
>>
>>> The 3750 should handle your needs just fine, as long as you don't need
>>> a full Internet routing table.
>>
>> What is meant by a "full Internet routing table"? I've never done BGP
>> before, so I'm not quite sure what is meant by this. If I didn't have a
>> full table, would some parts of the internet be unroutable?
>
> No, because you would still have a default route to fall back on. Looking
> at your requirements your first post, I would say you will not be using the
> full internet routing table.
>
>

A 3750 may fit the current needs (default to one ISP, paid peering to a
couple of smaller ISP) but leaves imho no room for upgrades ("two or moe
full table upstreams). Given that the 3750 is only used for routing I
would go for a real router (18xx or 28xx).


Arnold
--
Arnold Nipper, AN45

On 03.04.2005 18:51 Stevie wrote

> "Wayne" <> wrote in
> news:d3V3e.135868$Ze3.106432@attbi_s51:
>
>> "Stevie" <> wrote in message
>> news: om...
>>> (Steinar Haug) wrote in
>>> news::
>>>
>>>> The 3750 should handle your needs just fine, as long as you
>>>> don't need a full Internet routing table.
>>>
>>> What is meant by a "full Internet routing table"? I've never
>>> done BGP before, so I'm not quite sure what is meant by this. If
>>> I didn't have a full table, would some parts of the internet be
>>> unroutable?
>>
>> No, because you would still have a default route to fall back on.
>> Looking at your requirements your first post, I would say you will
>> not be using the full internet routing table.
>
> So how do I tell my router how much of a routing table do I want?

via inbound access-lists/route-maps applied to your peers

> Also, does my lack of a full view limit the number of ways a customer
> on the internet can reach me?

yes and no. The number of paths from you to a customer on the internet
is not only a function of your number of the next hops to the internet
but also of the number of AS numbers passed and of the connectivity of
your customer.

Usually having two providers to give you full connectivity to the
internet increases resilience of your internet connectivity but of
course also increases management complexity.



Arnold
--
Arnold Nipper, AN45