Re: perf #s for GRF vs 7500 Re: Anyone Deployed Ascend's GRF IP S witch?
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
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
Would you be less happy with these boxes if they didn't have "Bay Command Console"? And if it weren't available, what would you use? Charles ~~~~~~~~~ ~~~~~~~~~~~ Charles Sprickman Internet Channel INCH System Administration Team (212)243-5200 spork@inch.com access@inch.com On Wed, 27 Aug 1997, Rob Skrobola wrote:
Date: Wed, 27 Aug 1997 13:02:33 -0400 From: Rob Skrobola <rjs@ans.net> To: Tony Li <tli@juniper.net> Cc: Paul Peterson <paulp@winterlan.com>, 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
From: Charles Sprickman <spork@inch.com> Subject: Re: perf #s for GRF vs 7500 Re: Anyone Deployed Ascend's GRF IP S witch?
Would you be less happy with these boxes if they didn't have "Bay Command Console"?
To be more exact- For our purposes, bcc is an absolute necessity.
And if it weren't available, what would you use?
At the time we made this choice, no other box fulfilled our needs. Now.. I wouldn't want to speculate publicly. :) RobS
Charles
~~~~~~~~~ ~~~~~~~~~~~ Charles Sprickman Internet Channel INCH System Administration Team (212)243-5200 spork@inch.com access@inch.com
On Wed, 27 Aug 1997, Rob Skrobola wrote:
Date: Wed, 27 Aug 1997 13:02:33 -0400 From: Rob Skrobola <rjs@ans.net> To: Tony Li <tli@juniper.net> Cc: Paul Peterson <paulp@winterlan.com>, 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
participants (3)
-
Charles Sprickman -
Rob Skrobola -
Tony Li