[86043] in North American Network Operators' Group
Re: Routers RAM and BGP table bloat
daemon@ATHENA.MIT.EDU (Nils Ketelsen)
Fri Oct 21 08:15:23 2005
Date: Fri, 21 Oct 2005 14:14:42 +0200
From: Nils Ketelsen <nils.ketelsen@kuehne-nagel.com>
To: nanog@nanog.org
In-Reply-To: <6BF1A6354AF0DA4484284661A3E8DE140F1DBF@anyanka.c2internet.net>
Errors-To: owner-nanog@merit.edu
Ben Butler wrote:
> if anyone had a view on what would happen if I managed to source an
> SDRAM of 512MB / 1GB of the same specification as the 256MB Cisco
> compatible memory that you use in an 7200 NPE225. Cisco say the maximum
> ram for that NPE is a pitiful 256MB, I am sure the memory manufacturers
> will have made larger SDRAMs, while recognising it would be fully
> unsupported what would happen if we tried to stick in a larger memory
> module in the NPE....
I am just guessing here, but if the manufacturer says 256MB is the
maximum, I would expect that the unit is not able to address more than
256MB memory, regardless of the amount you plug in to it.
> It must be costing us all a small operational fortune in router upgrades
> brought about by the growing BGP table size. And yes I do know that if
> I was running Quagga on a PC I could have 4GB of inexpensive RAM very
> easily, but I want to avoid the x is better than y discussion.
Apart from the fact what is better than something else: I think it is
very brave to use unsupported hardware to operate a network. If
something fails, you are on your own then. No support from the vendor.
One of the things where being brave and being insane are only seperated
by a very thin line ;-)
Nils
