*********************** Your mail has been scanned by InterScan VirusWall. ***********-*********** Hi, Apologies if this is not deemed operational enough. Further to the debate about prefixes / v6 / multihomeing etc etc. The growing size of the route table, de-aged networks and increasing corporate mutlihomeing all drive up the size of the route table and brings pressure to bear on the memory requirements of our routers. Now while I want to steer well clear of the my box is better than your box discussion - I was wondering 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 can always go out and spend 5K per box on NPE G1 cards for each router, but operationally I don't need faster processors but I do need more RAM and I don't really see why I should be forced by Cisco to purchase an expensive upgrade just because they say 256MB is the maximum when I suspect we would be able to get away with sticking in a large SDRAM. Anyone got any thoughts on whether this would work or not? 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. Kind Regards Ben Butler ++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++ C2 Internet Ltd Globe House The Gullet Nantwich Cheshire CW5 5RL W http://www.c2internet.net/ T +44-(0)845-658-0020 F +44-(0)845-658-0070 All quotes & services from C2 are bound by our standard terms and conditions which are available on our website at: http://www.c2internet.net/legal/main.htm#tandc