Mailing List Archive: nsp: extreme

Using Extreme for BGP border router?

Index | Next | Previous | View Threaded

swulf at phonoscope

Jun 24, 2008, 12:43 PM

Post #1 of 11 (4768 views)
Permalink

Using Extreme for BGP border router?

Hi there,

we are looking at replacing our current border router and I wonder how
good / bad Extreme Networks gear is for doing BGP. I have a hard time
finding any good references on the web.

We are a medium sized ISP with about 2 Gbit/s of Internet traffic. I am
getting full routing tables from my two upstream providers and I am also
transit and BGP peer for some of my customers (~ 14 BGP peers downstream).

Current issue we have is that the global routing table > 250K routes and
the current gear can't keep all that in hardware, and we would like to
use 10G interfaces for future growth.

I would be interested if anybody out here is using an Extreme Networks
box in an ISP environment and is using BGP with multiple peers. I wonder
how the argument goes with Cisco customers/peers and any other issues
that one might run into it.

Thanks in advance for your reply and time,

Swen
_______________________________________________
extreme-nsp mailing list
extreme-nsp [at] puck
https://puck.nether.net/mailman/listinfo/extreme-nsp

jrhett at svcolo

Jun 24, 2008, 1:05 PM

Post #2 of 11 (4639 views)
Permalink

Re: Using Extreme for BGP border router? [In reply to]

On Jun 24, 2008, at 12:43 PM, Swen Wulf wrote:
> I would be interested if anybody out here is using an Extreme
> Networks box in an ISP environment and is using BGP with multiple
> peers. I wonder how the argument goes with Cisco customers/peers and
> any other issues that one might run into it.

In general Extreme works, but we migrated away from using them as
border peers for the following reasons:

1. When the BGP table overflows the unit falls down dead. No other
failure mode, it just falls flat on its face and stops routing
entirely. This is entirely useless as a failure mode.

2. It can't do uRPF so you can't filter your peers appropriately.

3. Memory size limits as you've noted. No way to change much memory
is given to the BGP table.

4. Extreme doesn't seem to care much about BGP problems. I have 4
open bugs with them that are mission critical problems that they still
haven't gotten around to fixing. One of those bugs is leaking routes
that are explicitly blocked (or implicitly - doesn't matter) that they
confirm is a bug and just can't be bothered to fix.

In summary, I wouldn't use an Extreme box in a BGP border situation
unless it was L2-only, which brings about the question of "why bother?"

Get a Force10 system for less money and much better support.

--
Jo Rhett
senior geek

Silicon Valley Colocation
Support Phone: 408-400-0550

_______________________________________________
extreme-nsp mailing list
extreme-nsp [at] puck
https://puck.nether.net/mailman/listinfo/extreme-nsp

lebayle at esrf

Jun 24, 2008, 11:02 PM

Post #3 of 11 (4630 views)
Permalink

Re: Using Extreme for BGP border router? [In reply to]

Swen Wulf wrote:
> Hi there,
>
> we are looking at replacing our current border router and I wonder how
> good / bad Extreme Networks gear is for doing BGP. I have a hard time
> finding any good references on the web.
>
> We are a medium sized ISP with about 2 Gbit/s of Internet traffic. I am
> getting full routing tables from my two upstream providers and I am also
> transit and BGP peer for some of my customers (~ 14 BGP peers downstream).
>
> Current issue we have is that the global routing table > 250K routes and
> the current gear can't keep all that in hardware, and we would like to
> use 10G interfaces for future growth.
>
> I would be interested if anybody out here is using an Extreme Networks
> box in an ISP environment and is using BGP with multiple peers. I wonder
> how the argument goes with Cisco customers/peers and any other issues
> that one might run into it.

Hi Swen,

We are precisely in this case on our MAN giving access to the French
public Education/Research network. There are more than 15 sites, all of
them with Cisco routers, but ours where we have a BD10808. The Internet
access is provided by two Cisco peers, so we have 2 BGP sessions
established and sometimes swap from the active to the backup without any
harm. 3.5 years of operation without any trouble on BGP, so
interoperability cannot be questioned. However, we deal with about 200
BGP routes only (MAN + default routes to the Internet) ...

Cheers,
Bruno LEBAYLE.
_____________________________________________________________________
o
o o o Bruno LEBAYLE - Computing Infrastructure group
o o o o o E.S.R.F (European Synchrotron Radiation Facility)
o ooo o 6 rue Jules Horowitz BP220 38043 GRENOBLE CEDEX 9
o o o ooooo o o o phone (33)4-7688-2258
o ooo o fax (33)4-7688-2020
o o o o o email lebayle [at] esrf
o o o
o http://intranet.esrf.fr/Computing/ComputingInfrastructure
_____________________________________________________________________
_______________________________________________
extreme-nsp mailing list
extreme-nsp [at] puck
https://puck.nether.net/mailman/listinfo/extreme-nsp

swmike at swm

Jun 25, 2008, 12:47 AM

Post #4 of 11 (4638 views)
Permalink

Re: Using Extreme for BGP border router? [In reply to]

On Tue, 24 Jun 2008, Swen Wulf wrote:

> I would be interested if anybody out here is using an Extreme Networks
> box in an ISP environment and is using BGP with multiple peers. I wonder
> how the argument goes with Cisco customers/peers and any other issues
> that one might run into it.

Last I checked there was only one Extreme platform that could handle
multiple full feeds, and that is the BD6800 with the MSM3, but then you
get all the forwarding quirks of that platform, not recommended for new
deployment.

I gave this feedback (no new platform being able to handle full routing
table) to the product people a couple of years ago, so they know about it
but I guess not enough Extreme customers use it for full BGP routing for
this to be a priority.

--
Mikael Abrahamsson email: swmike [at] swm
_______________________________________________
extreme-nsp mailing list
extreme-nsp [at] puck
https://puck.nether.net/mailman/listinfo/extreme-nsp

janasamit at wlink

Jun 25, 2008, 10:24 AM

Post #5 of 11 (4623 views)
Permalink

Re: Using Extreme for BGP border router? [In reply to]

I am frightened to know that Extreme is not recommended as a border
gateway with full bgp route along with its lethargy in support and bug
fixing. I have almost made up my mind purchasing BD12804R and 12802R
along with X450.

Hey Rhett, what is your take in Force 10's E300 bundle with 24port GbE
in price and performance comparing with BD12804R with 20port GbE?

Regards,
Samit

Jo Rhett wrote:
> On Jun 24, 2008, at 12:43 PM, Swen Wulf wrote:
>> I would be interested if anybody out here is using an Extreme Networks
>> box in an ISP environment and is using BGP with multiple peers. I
>> wonder how the argument goes with Cisco customers/peers and any other
>> issues that one might run into it.
>
>
> In general Extreme works, but we migrated away from using them as border
> peers for the following reasons:
>
> 1. When the BGP table overflows the unit falls down dead. No other
> failure mode, it just falls flat on its face and stops routing
> entirely. This is entirely useless as a failure mode.
>
> 2. It can't do uRPF so you can't filter your peers appropriately.
>
> 3. Memory size limits as you've noted. No way to change much memory is
> given to the BGP table.
>
> 4. Extreme doesn't seem to care much about BGP problems. I have 4 open
> bugs with them that are mission critical problems that they still
> haven't gotten around to fixing. One of those bugs is leaking routes
> that are explicitly blocked (or implicitly - doesn't matter) that they
> confirm is a bug and just can't be bothered to fix.
>
> In summary, I wouldn't use an Extreme box in a BGP border situation
> unless it was L2-only, which brings about the question of "why bother?"
>
> Get a Force10 system for less money and much better support.
>
_______________________________________________
extreme-nsp mailing list
extreme-nsp [at] puck
https://puck.nether.net/mailman/listinfo/extreme-nsp

aaron at wholesaleinternet

Jun 25, 2008, 10:26 AM

Post #6 of 11 (4639 views)
Permalink

Re: Using Extreme for BGP border router? [In reply to]

We use Extreme BlackDiamonds in an ISP setting with full BGP tables. Can
they do it? Yes although Mikael can attest that our setup is kind of hacked
together. :) If this is a new deployment I would check out Juniper for your
BGP speaking devices and fall back on Extreme for the internal stuff.

Aaron

-----Original Message-----
From: extreme-nsp-bounces [at] puck
[mailto:extreme-nsp-bounces [at] puck] On Behalf Of Mikael Abrahamsson
Sent: Wednesday, June 25, 2008 2:47 AM
To: extreme-nsp [at] puck
Subject: Re: [e-nsp] Using Extreme for BGP border router?

On Tue, 24 Jun 2008, Swen Wulf wrote:

> I would be interested if anybody out here is using an Extreme Networks
> box in an ISP environment and is using BGP with multiple peers. I wonder
> how the argument goes with Cisco customers/peers and any other issues
> that one might run into it.

Last I checked there was only one Extreme platform that could handle
multiple full feeds, and that is the BD6800 with the MSM3, but then you
get all the forwarding quirks of that platform, not recommended for new
deployment.

I gave this feedback (no new platform being able to handle full routing
table) to the product people a couple of years ago, so they know about it
but I guess not enough Extreme customers use it for full BGP routing for
this to be a priority.

--
Mikael Abrahamsson email: swmike [at] swm
_______________________________________________
extreme-nsp mailing list
extreme-nsp [at] puck
https://puck.nether.net/mailman/listinfo/extreme-nsp

_______________________________________________
extreme-nsp mailing list
extreme-nsp [at] puck
https://puck.nether.net/mailman/listinfo/extreme-nsp

nsubugr at mtn

Jun 25, 2008, 10:50 AM

Post #7 of 11 (4629 views)
Permalink

Re: Using Extreme for BGP border router? [In reply to]

Uhm ...

Haven't really had the opportunity to use this BD12804R BUT I think it can scale with BGP as well.

Regards

> -----Original Message-----
> From: extreme-nsp-bounces [at] puck [mailto:extreme-nsp-
> bounces [at] puck] On Behalf Of Samit
> Sent: Wednesday, June 25, 2008 8:24 PM
> To: extreme-nsp [at] puck
> Subject: Re: [e-nsp] Using Extreme for BGP border router?
>
> I am frightened to know that Extreme is not recommended as a border
> gateway with full bgp route along with its lethargy in support and bug
> fixing. I have almost made up my mind purchasing BD12804R and 12802R
> along with X450.
>
> Hey Rhett, what is your take in Force 10's E300 bundle with 24port GbE
> in price and performance comparing with BD12804R with 20port GbE?
>
> Regards,
> Samit
>
>
> Jo Rhett wrote:
> > On Jun 24, 2008, at 12:43 PM, Swen Wulf wrote:
> >> I would be interested if anybody out here is using an Extreme Networks
> >> box in an ISP environment and is using BGP with multiple peers. I
> >> wonder how the argument goes with Cisco customers/peers and any other
> >> issues that one might run into it.
> >
> >
> > In general Extreme works, but we migrated away from using them as border
> > peers for the following reasons:
> >
> > 1. When the BGP table overflows the unit falls down dead. No other
> > failure mode, it just falls flat on its face and stops routing
> > entirely. This is entirely useless as a failure mode.
> >
> > 2. It can't do uRPF so you can't filter your peers appropriately.
> >
> > 3. Memory size limits as you've noted. No way to change much memory is
> > given to the BGP table.
> >
> > 4. Extreme doesn't seem to care much about BGP problems. I have 4 open
> > bugs with them that are mission critical problems that they still
> > haven't gotten around to fixing. One of those bugs is leaking routes
> > that are explicitly blocked (or implicitly - doesn't matter) that they
> > confirm is a bug and just can't be bothered to fix.
> >
> > In summary, I wouldn't use an Extreme box in a BGP border situation
> > unless it was L2-only, which brings about the question of "why bother?"
> >
> > Get a Force10 system for less money and much better support.
> >
> _______________________________________________
> extreme-nsp mailing list
> extreme-nsp [at] puck
> https://puck.nether.net/mailman/listinfo/extreme-nsp
_______________________________________________
extreme-nsp mailing list
extreme-nsp [at] puck
https://puck.nether.net/mailman/listinfo/extreme-nsp

pete.bristow at gmail

Jun 25, 2008, 1:53 PM

Post #8 of 11 (4646 views)
Permalink

Re: Using Extreme for BGP border router? [In reply to]

Hello,

On Tue, 24 Jun 2008, Swen Wulf wrote:
>
> I would be interested if anybody out here is using an Extreme Networks box
>> in an ISP environment and is using BGP with multiple peers. I wonder how the
>> argument goes with Cisco customers/peers and any other issues that one might
>> run into it.
>>
>
Not really had problems, as long as it stays up no one really cares.

>
> Last I checked there was only one Extreme platform that could handle
> multiple full feeds, and that is the BD6800 with the MSM3, but then you get
> all the forwarding quirks of that platform, not recommended for new
> deployment.
>

The BD6800 can do bgp but would you really want to ? I had a 12K with a 6R
running full table lots of peers. multiple full tables. About a gig of
traffic no problems. I had 1 bug because I was running a pre production 6R.
It was found an fixed in a timely manner. You need to remember to enable
route compression. Avoid having a default route in a full table as it
degrades the compression significantly. (but even with a default it will
give you many years of capacity)

uRPF is supported in 12.1 on the 12k/10k.

>
> I gave this feedback (no new platform being able to handle full routing
> table) to the product people a couple of years ago, so they know about it
> but I guess not enough Extreme customers use it for full BGP routing for
> this to be a priority.
>

Well the 12k does do it. The 6R is pretty much a specific upgrade for those
that want to run full tables. Pricing when I last went shopping was
significantly lower than the NetIrons and 7600s.
The only big problem with going BGP on the extreme kit is that it's not
cisco so hiring in a new tech/consultant is expensive as you need to get
someone that knows bgp not someone who passed a cisco boot camp.

For what it's worth a friend of mine tried to implement a large layer 2 ring
network with force 10 and had no end of problems. To the point that Force10
agreed to rma the whole order (A lot of switches went back)

Thanks

Pete

jrhett at svcolo

Jul 4, 2008, 7:53 PM

Post #9 of 11 (4538 views)
Permalink

Re: Using Extreme for BGP border router? [In reply to]

On Jun 25, 2008, at 12:47 AM, Mikael Abrahamsson wrote:
> Last I checked there was only one Extreme platform that could handle
> multiple full feeds, and that is the BD6800 with the MSM3, but then
> you get all the forwarding quirks of that platform, not recommended
> for new deployment.

If by multiple you mean "2" then yes. 3 full feeds is where the MSM3
starts to fall over.

--
Jo Rhett
senior geek

Silicon Valley Colocation
Support Phone: 408-400-0550

_______________________________________________
extreme-nsp mailing list
extreme-nsp [at] puck
https://puck.nether.net/mailman/listinfo/extreme-nsp

jrhett at svcolo

Jul 4, 2008, 7:55 PM

Post #10 of 11 (4529 views)
Permalink

Re: Using Extreme for BGP border router? [In reply to]

On Jun 25, 2008, at 10:24 AM, Samit wrote:
> Hey Rhett, what is your take in Force 10's E300 bundle with 24port
> GbE in price and performance comparing with BD12804R with 20port GbE?

Force10 is cheaper to purchase, significantly cheaper on the longterm
support, and it works. 16+ full feeds, no problem.

--
Jo Rhett
senior geek

Silicon Valley Colocation
Support Phone: 408-400-0550

_______________________________________________
extreme-nsp mailing list
extreme-nsp [at] puck
https://puck.nether.net/mailman/listinfo/extreme-nsp

infothec at web

Jul 6, 2008, 1:05 PM

Post #11 of 11 (4516 views)
Permalink

Re: Using Extreme for BGP border router? [In reply to]

do not forget the advantage of a longest prefix match you have in
BD12804R. use it with the MSM6 and you could handle 5 times the full
routing table

Jo Rhett schrieb:
> On Jun 25, 2008, at 10:24 AM, Samit wrote:
>> Hey Rhett, what is your take in Force 10's E300 bundle with 24port
>> GbE in price and performance comparing with BD12804R with 20port GbE?
>
>
> Force10 is cheaper to purchase, significantly cheaper on the longterm
> support, and it works. 16+ full feeds, no problem.
>

_______________________________________________
extreme-nsp mailing list
extreme-nsp [at] puck
https://puck.nether.net/mailman/listinfo/extreme-nsp

Index | Next | Previous | View Threaded

Interested in having your list archived? Contact Gossamer Threads