Thanks for finally contributing something useful to this thread. About time
you offered some useful info. As far as your whining about me I don't think
the group really cares. I certainly do not.
John
----- Original Message -----
From: Spolidoro, Guilherme <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
To: 'John Kaberna' <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>; Cisco Groupstudy (E-mail)
<[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Sent: Tuesday, September 19, 2000 2:13 PM
Subject: RE: Cisco 3640 grunty enough for full-BGP routing?
> Something I always liked on the groupstudy was the fact that unlikelly
other
> lists there weren't people like. I leave the list for 3 months when I come
> back I met a person like you.
>
> Anyway, I was not sure if you have something against me (I doubt it), or
> against the company that I work for (possible) or if you just have an
> attitude problem (most likelly). I didn't have to read many messages from
> the archive to find out that the you definetly have match the 3rd
category.
> In fact, your post about the CCIE written just confirmed that.
>
> If you look over the archive you'll find out that I've been countributing
to
> the list for a long time and always treated people with respect.
>
> Said that, let's go back to the original topic. I collected some
information
> from the routers and hopefully that's going to help us all understand
things
> a little better.
>
> On the router that is receiveing full routing from 3 different sources +
> some minor BGP tables from another source, I have:
>
> routername#sh proc mem
> Total: 113040320, Used: 81450168, Free: 31590152
> 99 0 743336460 75256748 71727808 0 0 BGP
Router
> 101 0 59012 588774148 6796 31752 0 BGP I/O
> 102 0 0 8125308 6796 0 0 BGP
Scanner
> 81427968 Total
>
> routername#sh mem
> Head Total(b) Used(b) Free(b) Lowest(b)
Largest(b)
> Processor 61432440 113040320 81444248 31596072 27977536
27615736
> Fast 61412440 131072 128728 2344 2344
2300
>
>
> routername#sh ip bgp sum
> BGP router identifier xxx.xxx.xxx.xxx, local AS number xxxx
> BGP table version is 23908473, main routing table version 23908473
> 87354 network entries and 222266 paths using 16474914 bytes of memory
> 61018 BGP path attribute entries using 3175172 bytes of memory
> 27894 BGP AS-PATH entries using 721048 bytes of memory
> 1 BGP community entries using 24 bytes of memory
> 34880 BGP route-map cache entries using 558080 bytes of memory
> 0 BGP filter-list cache entries using 0 bytes of memory
> BGP activity 1483983/5039870 prefixes, 22873788/22651522 paths
>
> Neighbor V AS MsgRcvd MsgSent TblVer InQ OutQ
> Up/Down State/PfxRcd
> x.x.x.x 4 xxx 9336739 130266 23908431 0 0 1w6d 86890
> y.y.y.y 4 yyyy 5879226 5971108 23908431 0 0 1w5d
> 47810
> z.z.z.z 4 zzzz 1440681 130395 23908431 0 0 1w5d
> 306
> w.w.w.w 4 wwww 10460589 5988755 23908431 0 0 2d23h
> 87256
>
> As you can see on this router, the output from sh ip bgp sum shows that
the
> BGP tables are really only 16Mb large, but the sh proc mem shows that the
> BGP process overall uses about 71Mb.
>
> I hope this post helps the rest of the members of the list.
>
>
>
> -----Original Message-----
> From: John Kaberna [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]]
> Sent: Tuesday, September 19, 2000 3:21 PM
> To: Spolidoro, Guilherme; Cisco Groupstudy (E-mail)
> Subject: Re: Cisco 3640 grunty enough for full-BGP routing?
>
>
> First of all I've never heard of an "as is" or "summarized" version. It's
> either full routes or partial routes. Second, you shouldn't say
something
> if your not prepared to explain what you mean. I have received full
routes
> from several providers and the table has never taken up more than 20MB. I
> have always requested full routes.
>
> John
> ----- Original Message -----
> From: Spolidoro, Guilherme
> To: Cisco Groupstudy (E-mail)
> Sent: Tuesday, September 19, 2000 12:01 PM
> Subject: RE: Cisco 3640 grunty enough for full-BGP routing?
>
>
> Some ISPs offer full routing in two flavors: "as is" or a "summarized"
> version (maybe that's the case). Please don't ask any additional details
> because that was long long time ago...
> -----Original Message-----
> From: Guyler, Rik [EESUS] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]]
> Sent: Tuesday, September 19, 2000 1:06 PM
> To: John Kaberna; Cisco Groupstudy (E-mail)
> Subject: 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]
> To: Jeff Wang ; Cisco Groupstudy (E-mail)
> 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]
