Low budget router with full BGP table support

[Midfielder]

Hi, everyone!

What are the least capable Cisco routers/L3 switches which support full BGP table? By the least capable I mean those with smallest port density, interface speeds, throughput and last but most important cheapest price.

Thanks.

[Midfielder]

Can someone delete this message, I posted it under optical networking by accident.

[Midfielder]

Hi, everyone!

What are the least capable Cisco routers/L3 switches which support full BGP table? By the least capable I mean those with smallest port density, interface speeds, throughput and last but most important cheapest price.

Thanks.

[Mark Elsen]

   @Midfielder wrote :  >Can someone delete this message, I posted it under optical networking by accident.
                                                I moved it already to the correct group, 

 M.

[balaji.bandi]

Any ISR 4K / 1K or 8K Router can able to support that full BGP routing table. depends in the interface requirement choose the right product.

Good discussion on the learning network help you :

https://community.cisco.com/t5/routing/memory-requirements-for-full-table-bgp/td-p/5055172

https://learningnetwork.cisco.com/s/question/0D53i00000Kt0wLCAR/router-memory-for-bgp

[Mark Elsen]

  - You may for instance have a look at : https://www.cisco.com/c/en/us/products/routers/router-selector.html

   M.

[Joseph W. Doherty]

You might need to be a bit careful how small you go with a router's processing capacity.  In the past (IPv4 only on a 3660) a full Internet BGP table consumed a surprising amount of CPU due to the BGP scanner.

Also, you might carefully analyze the need for full BGP table.  If only one instantace, it only lets you drop packet to unknown destinations.  If multiple tables, unless you get involved with traffic engineering, you can, by default, choose the shortest AS path, by what does that really tell you as you have no information on available bandwidth.  Unless destination is multi homed, perhaps the best compromise is only accept destinations connected to your peer AS.

I mention the forgoing because if you really want cheapest, don't add unnecessary work to router's workload.

[Midfielder]

Thank you for your input.

I'm aware of that but the problem is that we need this for research purposes. Which means as reasearch institution we lack money for what we need. We have 2.5 peers who demans 10G connection. This basically means 4x10G ports, 2x full table and for as little money as possibleas possible (but I know that probably this still would not be chep by any means).

Do you have any specific suggestion with that in mind?

[Joseph W. Doherty]

2.5 peers?  Could you expand on that?

4 10g interface, not possibly 3?

How much throughput required?  All interfaces concurrent wire-speed, or less?  How complex a config and what will the router be doing beyond just routing?  (Beyond basic routing might include NAT, QoS, FW, etc.)

You're correct, a 4 10g router won't be inexpensive although if a research institution, something with an .EDU Internet suffix?

[paul driver]

Hello
What's the reasoning for a full internet table, is it defiantly required, the reason im asking then if it isnt then your do not required as much of a powerful rtr?