[189094] in North American Network Operators' Group
Re: BGP peering strategies for smaller routers
daemon@ATHENA.MIT.EDU (Blake Hudson)
Tue May 3 21:57:13 2016
X-Original-To: nanog@nanog.org
From: Blake Hudson <blake@ispn.net>
In-Reply-To: <DM2PR12MB01123E89852360A42E806797A07A0@DM2PR12MB0112.namprd12.prod.outlook.com>
Date: Tue, 3 May 2016 20:57:07 -0500
To: "nanog@nanog.org" <nanog@nanog.org>
Errors-To: nanog-bounces@nanog.org
I turned up a full ip4 feed on an RP1 today. Took approximately 5 minutes to=
fill the rib and probably another 5 minutes to push to the fib. The CLI res=
ponsiveness was noticeably slowed during this process, but the router didn't=
drop traffic. I'm guessing a second feed would involve fewer rib and fib ch=
anges and would converge faster.=20
> On May 3, 2016, at 6:02 PM, Carlos Alcantar <carlos@race.com> wrote:
>=20
> I know this thread has been primarily about memory to hold the routing tab=
les, but how well does it do with the BGP convergence time?? which could be=
the other killer with multiple full route tables.
>=20
