[12024] in North American Network Operators' Group
Re: perf #s for GRF vs 7500 Re: Anyone Deployed Ascend's GRF IP S witch?
daemon@ATHENA.MIT.EDU (Rob Skrobola)
Wed Aug 27 13:16:41 1997
To: Tony Li <tli@juniper.net>
cc: paulp@winterlan.com (Paul Peterson), nanog@merit.edu
In-reply-to: Your message of 27 Aug 1997 08:38:57 -0700.
<82203f63fy.fsf@chimp.juniper.net>
Date: Wed, 27 Aug 1997 13:02:33 -0400
From: Rob Skrobola <rjs@ans.net>
Folks,
We have bcn/bln's out there with over 60 bgp peers on a 64Mb
ARE. Works fine. Taking in about 63000 pps (170 Mbps) over 6 interfaces
with a high of 20k pps when I looked a couple of minutes ago..Not
untypical of the 30 bcn's and bln's on our network..
So the 4-6 Mb per peer thing is inaccurate. On the way high
side.
RobS
BGP Peers
---------
Local Remote Remote Peer Connection BGP Total
Address/Port Address/Port AS Mode State Ver Routes
--------------------- --------------------- ------ ------- ---------- --- ------
...
64 peers configured.
Memory Usage Statistics (Megabytes):
------------------------------------
Slot Total Used Free %Free
---- -------- -------- -------- -----
6 61.67 M 32.82 M 28.84 M 46 %
>Subject: Re: perf #s for GRF vs 7500 Re: Anyone Deployed Ascend's GRF IP S witch?
>From: Tony Li <tli@juniper.net>
>paulp@winterlan.com (Paul Peterson) writes:
>
>> Bay claims to hold the entire Internet routing table in just 4-6MB RAM
>> per BGP peer (I assume this is after convergence). They say that the
>> method in which they do this is proprietary. I am just wondering if it
>> is possible.....
>
>That's certainly possible. However, it would be interesting to see how it
>scales with the number of peers. You could quickly find yourself needing
>>64MB if it's even just linear.
>
>Tony
