Hi all,
I am trying to figure out if a 4431 can accommodate a full BGP routing table with its default 4GB RAM or if it needs 8GB. Our current benchmark is a 2921 router with 2.5GB RAM: Cisco CISCO2921/K9 (revision 1.0) with 2506752K/114688K bytes of memory With a full routing table, it is only using about 839MB of RAM: ROUTER#sh mem Head Total(b) Used(b) Free(b) Lowest(b) Largest(b) Processor 3D52CDE0 2350969276 839257740 1511711536 1237731724 643241260 I/O 9000000 117440512 18382712 99057800 98987952 98649340 (By the way, I would not recommend running a 2921 with a full BGP routing table since the CPU starts to buckle when throughput also approaches 100M, in my experience). By default, the 4431 comes with 2 GB for the data-plane and 4 GB for the control-plane. I would think this would be sufficient for a full BGP table, but the opinions I've seen out there appear to be conflicting. For example: https://supportforums.cisco.com/t5/wan-routing-and-switching/maximum-bgp-tab le-size-in-isr-4551-4331-with-standard-data-plane/td-p/2816329 Cisco itself states (https://www.cisco.com/c/en/us/products/collateral/routers/4000-series-integ rated-services-routers-isr/white-paper-c11-734550.html#_Toc424889858) that "All Cisco 4000 platforms support a full Internet routing table (500,000 prefixes) @ 8-GB DRAM." It's sounding to me like 8GB would be advisable. Wondering if anyone out there has real-world experience to share. BTW, in our case, we have limited ACLs and no NAT, but do have about 80 QoS policies also consuming resources (though I think that would impact CPU more than RAM). Thanks, Adam _______________________________________________ cisco-nsp mailing list cisco-nsp@puck.nether.net https://puck.nether.net/mailman/listinfo/cisco-nsp archive at http://puck.nether.net/pipermail/cisco-nsp/