nanog mailing list archives
Re: nexus N3K-C3064PQ vs juniper ex4500 in order to protect against ddos
From: joel jaeggli <joelja () bogus com>
Date: Sun, 2 Oct 2016 21:59:10 -0700
On 9/30/16 12:42 PM, Pedro wrote:
Hello, I have some idea to put switch before bgp router in order to terminate isp 10G uplinks on switch, not router. Main reason is that could be some kind of 1st level of defence against ddos, second reason, less important, save cost of router ports, do many port mirrors.
The distinction on cost of ports is somewhat germain when dealing with things like span ports. maybe strictly speaking if the router platform can handle line rate forwarding at minimum packet size it is just as performant as the switch at both forwarding and probably acl application (there are of course exceptions). in general these switches has substantially smaller port buffers then a router or high end l3 switch platform (qfx10k or ptx for example) would have when spanning ports or doing some statistical multiplexing. Which can be a liability. A number of us no doubt use layer2/3 switches as customer aggregation or indeed peering platforms. and suitability for such may depend on the mix of hardware and software features available as well as non-forwarding attributes such as the amount of memory available. i have boxes for example that have a full table rib but only default route for non-customer routes. the prospects for gettting away with that sort of thing with only 2GB of ram are growing increasingly dire. So i would say this sort thing does work, and with some familiarity with the platforms you become more comfortable with their limitations, but it's not automatically the best route, and the additional bump in the forwarding path is not free of costs or complexity.
I think about N3K-C3064PQ or Juniper ex4500 because there are quite cheap and a lot of on Ebay. I would like on nexus or juniper try use some feature: - limit udp, icmp, bum packets (bandwith,pps) at ingress tagged port or vlan - create counters: passed and dropped packets, best way to get this counters via snmp oid, sent snmp traps, syslog etc in order to monitor or even as a action shut down port - port mirror from many ports/vlans to multiple port (other anty ddos solutions) - limited bgp but with flowspec to comunicate with another anty ddos devices I'm also wondering how this feature above impact on cpu/whole switch. It can be some performance degradation ot all of this feature are done in hardware, with wirespeeed ? Which model will better to do this ? Thanks for any advice, Pedro --- Ta wiadomość została sprawdzona na obecność wirusów przez oprogramowanie antywirusowe Avast. https://www.avast.com/antivirus
Attachment:
signature.asc
Description: OpenPGP digital signature
Current thread:
- Re: nexus N3K-C3064PQ vs juniper ex4500 in order to protect against ddos Pedro (Oct 01)
- Re: nexus N3K-C3064PQ vs juniper ex4500 in order to protect against ddos Saku Ytti (Oct 01)
- <Possible follow-ups>
- Re: nexus N3K-C3064PQ vs juniper ex4500 in order to protect against ddos Mike Hammett (Oct 01)
- Re: nexus N3K-C3064PQ vs juniper ex4500 in order to protect against ddos James Jun (Oct 01)
- Re: nexus N3K-C3064PQ vs juniper ex4500 in order to protect against ddos Josh Reynolds (Oct 01)
- Re: nexus N3K-C3064PQ vs juniper ex4500 in order to protect against ddos Saku Ytti (Oct 01)
- Re: nexus N3K-C3064PQ vs juniper ex4500 in order to protect against ddos James Jun (Oct 01)
- Re: nexus N3K-C3064PQ vs juniper ex4500 in order to protect against ddos James Jun (Oct 01)
- Re: nexus N3K-C3064PQ vs juniper ex4500 in order to protect against ddos Mike Hammett (Oct 01)
- Re: nexus N3K-C3064PQ vs juniper ex4500 in order to protect against ddos joel jaeggli (Oct 02)
