On (2011-08-17 02:07 +0200), Lars Eidsheim wrote:
- Load times of the full BGP table will be higher than the NPE-G1/2 - do
anyone know the respective load times? Do you expect to see 1 minute or 10
minutes?
SUP720-3BXL can load BGP table in under 1min, but NPE-G1 can do lot better.
But
It might be not directly related to your request but make sure you know
in advance the amount of prefixes to load with BGP with sup720-3BXL as
max tcam size is by default set in config=512K. We had an issue where
the router crashed because of the number of prefixes reached max tcam
512K
On Wednesday, August 17, 2011 07:54:11 PM Saku Ytti wrote:
SUP720-3BXL can load BGP table in under 1min, but NPE-G1
can do lot better. But initial convergence is hardly
very interesting metric.
Agree.
How the CPU handles a thrashing table, or a returning full
BGP v4 session while the CPU is
In what configuration does an NPE G1 load tables in under a minute?
I haven't seen one load a full table in anywhere near sub 1 min.
G2 yes, G1 really?
-Original Message-
From: Saku Ytti
Sent: Wednesday, August 17, 2011 7:54 AM
To: cisco-nsp@puck.nether.net
Subject: Re: [c-nsp] BGP
On (2011-08-17 13:48 -0400), Scott Granados wrote:
In what configuration does an NPE G1 load tables in under a minute?
I haven't seen one load a full table in anywhere near sub 1 min.
Maybe you've not changed hold-queue or MSS size.
CSCsh81034 Bug Details
sup720 slow to upload BGP table to
On (2011-08-17 13:48 -0400), Scott Granados wrote:
In what configuration does an NPE G1 load tables in under a minute?
Just loaded from SUP720-3BXL - NPE-G1, 383k routes in under minute. And InQ
was almost all the time 0 in NPE-G1, as SUP720-3BXL wasn't sending fast enough.
Router had other
Thank you all for the feedback on the subject. It is much appreciated.
Looking at the facts that the sup720 engine will hold full bgp table and do 30
mpps (400 mpps with dfc), it beats the 3945 (982 kpps), npe-g2 (2 mpps) it
looks like a good investment compared to raw performance and needs.
On 8/14/11 8:35 PM, Pete Lumbis wrote:
Bottom line, I would under no situation ever consider NPE-G[12] for forwarding
Internet peering traffic (wording chosen carefully:). And I have lot of love
for them.
A completely fair statement, it all comes down to throughput
requirements. A hardware
The Sup720 on a 6k/7600 won't be what you are looking for in a large
peering environment. I'd suggest an NPE-G2 if the 7200 is still
suiting you needs and only needs a small upgrade.
You could also look at moving to an ASR1k platform which I think can
do 10GE and still provides the investment
On (2011-08-13 10:27 -0400), Pete Lumbis wrote:
The Sup720 on a 6k/7600 won't be what you are looking for in a large
peering environment. I'd suggest an NPE-G2 if the 7200 is still
suiting you needs and only needs a small upgrade.
Majority of Internet traffic is still being pushed by 6500
On Friday, August 12, 2011 09:31:08 PM Lars Eidsheim wrote:
I am planning to upgrade our BGP edge from a Cisco
7200/NPE-G1. The NPE-G1 suits our needs at the moment,
but as we are looking to interconnect with more
services, do more localpeerings and implement IPv6 in
near future this might a
From: Lars Eidsheim l...@intellit.no
To: cisco-nsp@puck.nether.net cisco-nsp@puck.nether.net
Sent: Friday, August 12, 2011 7:31 AM
Subject: [c-nsp] BGP router upgrade
Hi all,
I am looking for a thoughts about a BGP edge router upgrade.
I am planning to upgrade
12 matches
Mail list logo
