>last week i installed a router (7200). the full bgp table occupied 11.5 mb.
>that's all. in 128 mb you can put the bgp table of the entire galaxy...
It's really not a simple answer, if, as most providers would, you
have multiple views of the global routing table.
At the RIPE (European IP network) meeting last week, Phil Smith of
Cisco presented some new growth statistics on the global routing
table. While the introduction of CIDR some years back flattened the
growth curve, we are back to exponential growth. Figure 100 K routes
by December.
>
> > -----Mensaje original-----
> > De: Guyler, Rik [EESUS] [SMTP:[EMAIL PROTECTED]]
> > Enviado el: Tuesday, September 19, 2000 2:06 PM
> > Para: John Kaberna; Cisco Groupstudy (E-mail)
> > Asunto: RE: Cisco 3640 grunty enough for full-BGP routing?
> >
> > I don't know the nuances involved, but he stated that the Internet routing
> > table a year ago was over 70,000 routes and is probably closer to 90,000
> > routes right now. Maybe you did not see the complete table when you saw
> > 20MB? I don't know... Like I said, however, he is a 3xxx CCIE and a
> > Cisco SE, so I find it hard to refute his word. Not that I'm saying you
> > are wrong, just that I find him to be extremely credible.
> >
> > Rik
> >
> > -----Original Message-----
> > From: John Kaberna [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]]
> > Sent: Monday, September 18, 2000 4:16 PM
> > To: Guyler, Rik [EESUS]; Jeff Wang; Cisco Groupstudy (E-mail)
> > Subject: Re: Cisco 3640 grunty enough for full-BGP routing?
> >
> >
> > The BGP routing table itself takes up less than 20MB of memory last
> > time I checked (only a couple months ago). I don't have access to a
> > router running full BGP routes right this moment but someone should verify
> > this. I am fairly certain it is less than 20. So, you can run it just
> > fine on a 3640 with 128mb. I completely disagree with this "experienced"
> > CCIE. However, his routers may have several other services running on
> > them that use a lot of memory. A 3640 with 128mb used simply as an
> > Internet router running BGP will have no trouble now or in the near
> > future. Does anyone have a 3640 w/BGP that could provide some current
> > stats?
> >
> > John
> >
> > ----- Original Message -----
> > From: Guyler, Rik [EESUS] <mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> > To: Jeff Wang <mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]> ; Cisco
> > Groupstudy (E-mail) <mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> > Sent: Monday, September 18, 2000 9:13 AM
> > Subject: RE: Cisco 3640 grunty enough for full-BGP routing?
> >
> > A CCIE, experienced in the service provider market, just
> > recently told me that a 3640 *might* be OK at first, but it would really
> > be a strain to keep the entire routing table. His reasoning is that 128MB
> > RAM barely covers the requirements and will allow no room for growth. He
> > went on to say that if you can, use 256MB, 512MB, etc. as new routes that
> > are added in the future will drive your memory requirements beyond 128MB.
> >
> > Rik Guyler
> >
> > -----Original Message-----
> > From: Jeff Wang [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]]
> > Sent: Monday, September 18, 2000 12:18 AM
> > To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
> > Subject: Cisco 3640 grunty enough for full-BGP
> > routing?
> >
> >
> >
> > Hi all,
> >
> > Just a quick question regarding 3640 with 128MB
> > DRAM. Will it be grunty enough to run full-BGP, talking to two different
> > providers and getting full routes, with one E1 2Mbps WAN link to each
> > provider? What's your minimum configuration from experience?
> >
> > TIA,
> >
> > Jeff Wang
**NOTE: New CCNA/CCDA List has been formed. For more information go to
http://www.groupstudy.com/list/Associates.html
_________________________________
UPDATED Posting Guidelines: http://www.groupstudy.com/list/guide.html
FAQ, list archives, and subscription info: http://www.groupstudy.com
Report misconduct and Nondisclosure violations to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
