[86049] in North American Network Operators' Group
Re: Routers RAM and BGP table bloat
daemon@ATHENA.MIT.EDU (Robert E.Seastrom)
Fri Oct 21 09:07:28 2005
To: Nils Ketelsen <nils.ketelsen@kuehne-nagel.com>
Cc: nanog@nanog.org
From: Robert E.Seastrom <rs@seastrom.com>
Date: Fri, 21 Oct 2005 09:07:01 -0400
In-Reply-To: <4358DBB2.5080507@kuehne-nagel.com> (Nils Ketelsen's message of
"Fri, 21 Oct 2005 14:14:42 +0200")
Errors-To: owner-nanog@merit.edu
Nils Ketelsen <nils.ketelsen@kuehne-nagel.com> writes:
> 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.
That's not entirely a reasonable conclusion - the npe225 only
"supported" 128m and a lot of us were running them with 256m.
> 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.
Of course, if you don't have the hardware under support contract in
the first place...
> One of the things where being brave and being insane are only seperated
> by a very thin line ;-)
Indeed.
---Rob
