From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: from uplift.swm.pp.se (ipv6.swm.pp.se [IPv6:2a00:801::f]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher ADH-AES256-GCM-SHA384 (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by lists.bufferbloat.net (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 024D43CB36 for ; Thu, 21 Feb 2019 02:38:00 -0500 (EST) Received: by uplift.swm.pp.se (Postfix, from userid 501) id D9CE2BC; Thu, 21 Feb 2019 08:37:59 +0100 (CET) DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/simple; d=swm.pp.se; s=mail; t=1550734679; bh=d5mbnNfQVafY53y0+Rd/SswKJ+VsXBl80fSvB4i+Dts=; h=Date:From:To:cc:Subject:In-Reply-To:References:From; b=nOl08uir74hLF6i67EhIaPpuWrTSzbRi6P8GEoXWfLHj91Aoq23eCn5l+MgEsPyp/ cxT/TSEVjKx/iXlaZEGWOGGAaRpk3oOLDIlLAjvirvFzVy9ck5bdf4fiQ6zuggQIXW L0KvqAhtEQGyfXXab+2+9p+U1OSncSsRSjXZdoGs= Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by uplift.swm.pp.se (Postfix) with ESMTP id D6C1FB3; Thu, 21 Feb 2019 08:37:59 +0100 (CET) Date: Thu, 21 Feb 2019 08:37:59 +0100 (CET) From: Mikael Abrahamsson To: Dave Taht cc: cerowrt-devel In-Reply-To: Message-ID: References: User-Agent: Alpine 2.20 (DEB 67 2015-01-07) Organization: People's Front Against WWW MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=US-ASCII; format=flowed Subject: Re: [Cerowrt-devel] cheap BGP capable routers? X-BeenThere: cerowrt-devel@lists.bufferbloat.net X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.20 Precedence: list List-Id: Development issues regarding the cerowrt test router project List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Thu, 21 Feb 2019 07:38:01 -0000 On Wed, 20 Feb 2019, Dave Taht wrote: > > https://www.ebay.com/itm/Cisco-7206VXR-Router-W-NPE-G1-Dual-AC-3-x-Gigabit-GbE-Ports-7206-VXR/303045454855?epid=1503935635&hash=item468eeaac07:g:xDsAAOSw~OdVcLaO > > An edgerouter X does all the same thing for $40, but I could use > another spaceheater. For you it might do everything, but I can assure you it's not even close in functionality. That puppy is the best ever "swiss army knife" Cisco ever made. Completely CPU based forwarding and took ALL THE INTERFACES imaginable. It can take ISDN E1/T1 interfaces and act as TDM/SIP gateways etc. It does it all. > As best as I can tell there are three main variants of cisco IOS - A > qnx version (is that this box?), and two different linux based ones, > IOS-XE which doesn't work with 240.0.0.0/4, and IOS-XR, which does. Tnis box runs "classic IOS". So if you want to lab 240.0.0.0/3 7206 isn't a good box. I talked to people about juniper, and the response I got was SRX320 and turn off the firewall and run it in router mode. It can evidently run recent JunOS. > XR at least, in a vm. Can I trust the vm to be correct? Or should I go > looking for actual hw? What sort of penetration do each of these types > have? IOS XR is typically run on the largest carrier-grade boxes for core/distribution role. IOS XE is run on the newer mid-range boxes (it's evolved from classic IOS) and all the smallish boxes run IOS. Yes, you can trust the vm for 240.0.0.0/3 testing. Same with vMX (Juniper). We have Nokia/ALU SROS as VM as well, also Huawei. That covers most of the core routing space. > Nope, just need to see what errors get thrown off with a half dozen > obscure routes. Right, then you should be fine with any VM. > thx again! are you (or anyone here?) coming to netdevconf? I am not. -- Mikael Abrahamsson email: swmike@swm.pp.se