[127709] in North American Network Operators' Group
RE: Hardware for 50Mbs BGP feed.WAS Rate Limiting on Cisco Router
daemon@ATHENA.MIT.EDU (Matthew Huff)
Fri Jul 9 14:01:39 2010
From: Matthew Huff <mhuff@ox.com>
To: 'Chris Gotstein' <chris@uplogon.com>, "'nanog@nanog.org'" <nanog@nanog.org>
Date: Fri, 9 Jul 2010 14:01:02 -0400
In-Reply-To: <4C375DF8.5050807@uplogon.com>
Errors-To: nanog-bounces+nanog.discuss=bloom-picayune.mit.edu@nanog.org
We have something very similar. We have 2 x 7204VXR/NPE-G1 with 1GB RAM ea=
ch with a 50Mb connection to an upstream provider with full routes. No cpu =
or other problems at all.
-----Original Message-----
From: Chris Gotstein [mailto:chris@uplogon.com]=20
Sent: Friday, July 09, 2010 1:36 PM
To: nanog@nanog.org
Subject: Re: Hardware for 50Mbs BGP feed.WAS Rate Limiting on Cisco Router
I think a 7200VXR with NPE-G1 that has 1Gb of ram would work just fine
for you. We are running a very similar setup, passing about 70Mbs, full
BGP routes, 2 providers and ACLs, only seeing about 20% usage on the CPU
at peak times.
---- ---- ---- ----
Chris Gotstein, Network Engineer, U.P. Logon/Computer Connection U.P.
http://uplogon.com | +1 906 774 4847 | chris@uplogon.com
On 7/9/2010 11:43 AM, Dylan Ebner wrote:
> Yesterday we took possession of a free 50Mb connection upgrade from one o=
f our ISPs. The previous connection was 30Mbps with a partial route table v=
ia BGP. Other than BGP, the only other complex functions the router perform=
s is access listing the CRYMU Team Bogon table and traffic shaping. We term=
inate this into a 2811 running 12.4 with 512MB of memory. When the Access l=
ists were applied we peaked the connection at 39Mbps and when the access li=
st was removed we peaked at 43.5Mbps. The CPU was pegged at 65% with the ac=
l and 50% without. Given the recent discussion about 80Mbps and a 7200, wha=
t would members here recommend for a 50Mb connection that we expect to grow=
to 100Mb in the next 18 months. We are also planning on adding netflow col=
lection in the next year as well.
>=20
> We were think of upgrading to a 3900 series, but it sounds like maybe we =
should be thinking bigger?
>=20
> Also, how do members determine if their routers are overloaded. Besides l=
ooking at memory and CPU usage are their other statistics they look at? Are=
their third party tools that provide some insight into the routers conditi=
on?
>=20
>=20
>=20
> Dylan Ebner
>=20
> -----Original Message-----
> From: Alan Bryant [mailto:alan@gtekcommunications.com]=20
> Sent: Thursday, July 08, 2010 8:33 PM
> To: gordslater@ieee.org
> Cc: Murphy, Jay, DOH; nanog@nanog.org
> Subject: Re: Rate Limiting on Cisco Router
>=20
> So you guys would not recommend the traffic shaping route on a 7206
> with a NPE-G1? Is it the processor or memory that would not be able to
> handle it?
>=20
> I don't necessarily plan on doing anything other than limiting it at
> 80Mbps or whatever it is that we are capping ourselves at at the time.
>=20
> On Thu, Jul 8, 2010 at 7:13 PM, gordon b slater <gordslater@ieee.org> wro=
te:
>> On Thu, 2010-07-08 at 18:54 -0500, Jack Bates wrote:
>>> underpowered router or poor code
>>
>> Agreed. So which is it? :)
>>
>> To be fair, some IOS versions were better than others at it in my
>> limited experience of that chassis.
>>
>> Gord
>> --
>> I hold you XAP
>>
>>
>>
>>
>=20
>=20
>=20
