[12026] 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 (Charles Sprickman)
Wed Aug 27 13:39:21 1997
Date: Wed, 27 Aug 1997 13:22:37 -0400 (EDT)
From: Charles Sprickman <spork@inch.com>
To: Rob Skrobola <rjs@ans.net>
cc: Tony Li <tli@juniper.net>, Paul Peterson <paulp@winterlan.com>,
nanog@merit.edu
In-Reply-To: <199708271702.NAA02086@shrike.aa.ans.net>
Would you be less happy with these boxes if they didn't have "Bay Command
Console"? And if it weren't available, what would you use?
Charles
~~~~~~~~~ ~~~~~~~~~~~
Charles Sprickman Internet Channel
INCH System Administration Team (212)243-5200
spork@inch.com access@inch.com
On Wed, 27 Aug 1997, Rob Skrobola wrote:
> Date: Wed, 27 Aug 1997 13:02:33 -0400
> From: Rob Skrobola <rjs@ans.net>
> To: Tony Li <tli@juniper.net>
> Cc: Paul Peterson <paulp@winterlan.com>, nanog@merit.edu
> Subject: Re: perf #s for GRF vs 7500 Re: Anyone Deployed Ascend's GRF IP S witch?
>
> 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
>
