[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]

RE: IXP hardware

Title: Message
Antonio suggested using leased lines and ISP routers, that was the assumption I was going on. If they all have leased lines to the IXC, its still probably going to be a lot simpler just to use small routers like cisco 2501s or something. You don't need much horsepower. If everyone just terminates into a big router, how would each ISP control their BGP setup? Seems too complicated and not very scalable. BGP just enforces traffic polcies between AS's basically. Running lots of ASs on one router that are under control of seperate organizations would be challenging.  If the ISPs want to maintain autonomy and scalability it would be better to use seperate routers and a central l2 fabric. Cheaper and easier just to use bare bones equipment at the IXC and have each ISP control their own router. The major cost is goingto be the reoccuring, ie the circuits.
 
andrew
-----Original Message-----
From: Americo F. Muchanga [mailto:americo at it.kth.se]
Sent: Thursday, March 07, 2002 5:13 PM
To: Metcalf, Andrew; 'afnog at afnog.org'
Subject: Re: IXP hardware

Andrew,

I thought that u were throwing away the idea of co-locating routers from ISPs in the IX site. Now, the isps are not likely to provide their router in the ix site. UEM has a small grant from DFID to help establish the IX, so i thought it'd be easier to have one bigger Router rather than having many small routers terminating lines from ISPs. So my question now is what do you think about having one large router terminating the lines from isps as suggested by antonio.

rgds, a./


Metcalf, Andrew wrote:
Uh, thats pretty plain, the WAN interfaces terminate into the ISPs routers that they have onsite at the IXC. The IXCs switch only connects to the ISPs routers co-located with it. There is no need for seperate ASNs running on a central IXC router or anything, if you are just doing l2 peering. Each peers router has their ASN on it. This all depends on the amount of folks you are talking about. Of course there should be an neutral BGP speaking host on the switch that is run by the IXC if you want to have some kind of BGP lookingglass/troubleshooting.
 
DOn't make a mountain out of a molehill, all a L2 IXC basically is is just co-locating several ISPs routers and a switch to connect them together.
 
andrew
 
-----Original Message-----
From: Americo F. Muchanga [mailto:americo at it.kth.se]
Sent: Thursday, March 07, 2002 4:43 PM
To: Metcalf, Andrew
Cc: 'afnog at afnog.org'
Subject: Re: IXP hardware

Andrew,

how do you think that the wan leased lines from the telco are going to terminated if you do not use the wan type interfaces? no dsl lines are available in mz at the moment. Well running the wireless point to point solution is possible and one the isps is going to do that. the prob is officially only the university, UEM, is authorized to use the ISM band in MZ so other wireless solutions would need a license. The wireless solution of course will terminate in the switch. The rationale for the suggestion proposed by Antonio is the fact that we could terminate all the links into one single router, but, apart from  Juniper routers that can run multiple ASN processes in one router, i do not know if cisco can do that, one possible solution would be to do bgp multihop. Please contribute if that would be a feasible solution for the IX, advise in regard to performance, reliability, redundancy, etc.

rgds, a./


Metcalf, Andrew wrote:
305E3FEA32F4D2118D7A00A0C9AFCC1201A678D2 at mailman.danet.com type="cite">

Probably would be better to have them invest in an ethernet switch proper. The IXC itself shouldn't require any WAN type interfaces. Only the routers that are owned by the ISPs need to have WAN access. So something like a cisco 6000 or Foundry Fastxxxx. Hell, if it's just a few people and you don't think you will need anything fancy just use any ethernet switch with a few ports on it. Really, it depends on how many people and how much traffic you visualize being passed through this. Best bet is to start small but functional using as much of the present resources you have. Its easy to scale it because you just put in a bigger/layer3 switch if you eventually need it.

Regards,
Andrew


-----Original Message-----
From: antonio at nambu.uem.mz [ mailto:antonio at nambu.uem.mz ]
Sent: Thursday, March 07, 2002 3:56 PM
To: afnog at afnog.org
Subject: RE: IXP hardware


-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
Hash: SHA1

Hi,

Thanks guys.
That's just what I needed to know. I guess it would be each ISP's
responsability to bring their router to the IXP. I was also thinking of a
contribution from all ISP's involved to buy a single router with multiple
Serial and ethernet interfaces where they would all connect, something
like a cisco 7200 series. How does that sound?

Cheers,



> If each ISP is putting a router in at the peering point, require them
> to have an Ethernet interface on their router. Then install a common
> switch fabric via an Ethernet switch, for instance a Cisco or Foundry.
> Connect each router to the switch. If their router's ethernet
> interfaces support 802.11q, all the better if you want to do some
> layer 3 stuff (ie "private" peering vlans).
>
> Does that answer your question? Please let me know if you need
> anything else...
>
> Thanks
> andrew
>
> -----Original Message-----
> From: antonio at nambu.uem.mz [ mailto:antonio at nambu.uem.mz ]
> Sent: Thursday, March 07, 2002 2:13 PM
> To: afnog at afnog.org
> Subject: IXP hardware
>
>
> -----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
> Hash: SHA1
>
> Hi everyone,
>
> We are in the way of making an IXP in the country and I just wanted to
> know if any of you would have an idea of which technology can be used
> to connect the ISP's to the IXP when the only feasible means is leased
> lines. The IXP would in principle be layer 2 and the ISP's would each
> have a router and could peer with each other. The question is: how can
> I connect those ISP's over a leased line to the switch at the IXP?
>
> Cheers,
>
>
>
> -----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
> Version: PGP 5.5.5 -- QDPGP 2.12
> Comment: http://community.wow.net/grt/qdpgp.html
>
> iQA/AwUBPIefliN9iWWR27GKEQLFSACg2kRWhMyQ9DC9pJNn+5clFTRCDicAn1vp
> FEsJriICp982Q3Jt4/dczgzQ
> =SqAK
> -----END PGP SIGNATURE-----
> Antonio Godinho
> B.Sc.,
> MCP, MCP+Internet, MCSE (Microsoft Certified Systems Engineer) CCNA
> (Cisco Certified Network Associate) Tel. +258-1-490860 Cell
> +258-82-300392
>
>
> -----
> This is the afnog mailing list, managed by Majordomo 1.94.5
>
> To send a message to this list, e-mail afnog at afnog.org
> To send a request to majordomo, e-mail majordomo at afnog.org and put
> your request in the body of the message (i.e use "help" for help)
>
> This list is maintained by owner-afnog at afnog.org
>



-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
Version: PGP 5.5.5 -- QDPGP 2.12
Comment: http://community.wow.net/grt/qdpgp.html

iQA/AwUBPIe3ziN9iWWR27GKEQKQWACg/CEuanh0g9j01bj5YenVYumtrlEAn2qL
SuqW+D3dccHWRyCwtNOyVcqU
=PY12
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----
Antonio Godinho
B.Sc.,
MCP, MCP+Internet, MCSE (Microsoft Certified Systems Engineer) CCNA (Cisco Certified Network Associate) Tel. +258-1-490860 Cell +258-82-300392


-----
This is the afnog mailing list, managed by Majordomo 1.94.5

To send a message to this list, e-mail afnog at afnog.org
To send a request to majordomo, e-mail majordomo at afnog.org and put your request in the body of the message (i.e use "help" for help)

This list is maintained by owner-afnog at afnog.org