Rob, Comparing your BAY routers to everyone elses is like comparing a top fuel dragster to someones 69 Chevelle street racer. You folks have some heavily modified software and hardware, from what I understand. However, we've got a couple of BAY BCN/BLN routers about, and the numbers that have been mentioned previously in this thread are fairly accurate. Chris ---------- From: Rob Skrobola[SMTP:rjs@ans.net] Sent: Wednesday, August 27, 1997 12:02 PM To: Tony Li Cc: Paul Peterson; nanog@merit.edu Subject: Re: perf #s for GRF vs 7500 Re: Anyone Deployed Ascend's GRF IP S witch? Folks, We have bcn/bln's out there with over 60 bgp peers on a 64Mb ARE. Works fine. Taking in about 63000 pps (170 Mbps) over 6 interfaces with a high of 20k pps when I looked a couple of minutes ago..Not untypical of the 30 bcn's and bln's on our network.. So the 4-6 Mb per peer thing is inaccurate. On the way high side. RobS BGP Peers --------- Local Remote Remote Peer Connection BGP Total Address/Port Address/Port AS Mode State Ver Routes --------------------- --------------------- ------ ------- ---------- --- ------ .. 64 peers configured. Memory Usage Statistics (Megabytes): ------------------------------------ Slot Total Used Free %Free ---- -------- -------- -------- ----- 6 61.67 M 32.82 M 28.84 M 46 %
Subject: Re: perf #s for GRF vs 7500 Re: Anyone Deployed Ascend's GRF IP S witch? From: Tony Li <tli@juniper.net>
paulp@winterlan.com (Paul Peterson) writes:
Bay claims to hold the entire Internet routing table in just 4-6MB RAM per BGP peer (I assume this is after convergence). They say that the method in which they do this is proprietary. I am just wondering if it is possible.....
That's certainly possible. However, it would be interesting to see how it scales with the number of peers. You could quickly find yourself needing
64MB if it's even just linear.
Tony