[150936] in North American Network Operators' Group
Re: [c-nsp] ASR opinions..
daemon@ATHENA.MIT.EDU (Christian 'wiwi' Wittenhorst)
Thu Mar 8 13:40:03 2012
Date: Thu, 08 Mar 2012 19:38:47 +0100
From: "Christian 'wiwi' Wittenhorst" <wiwi@progon.net>
To: PC <paul4004@gmail.com>
In-Reply-To: <CAJAdsD=2fYeesxKihp0EfwSY8kcYcsS4=TqN2AoM5-zVq6Ekmg@mail.gmail.com>
Cc: nanog@nanog.org
Errors-To: nanog-bounces+nanog.discuss=bloom-picayune.mit.edu@nanog.org
On 2012-03-08 18:25, PC wrote:
> The low end ASRs are poor boxes for full BGP table internet edge
> applications. They have many other great applications, but the reason they
> are bad here is simply route limits in the FIB.
>
> The asr1001 only supports 512,000 IPV4 routes in the FIB at any given point
> in time, and 128,000 IPV6 routes.
Current ASR1001 do NOT have that limitation:
<http://www.cisco.com/en/US/prod/collateral/routers/ps9343/data_sheet_c78-441072.html>
> Performance
> * 1,000,000 IPv4 or 1,000,000 IPv6 routes
> * BGP RR scalability to 2,000,000 IPv4/IPv6 routes
> (using 4-GB memory) or 9,000,000 IPv4/IPv6
> routes (using 8-GB memory)
