nanog mailing list archives
Re: perf #s for GRF vs 7500 Re: Anyone Deployed Ascend's GRF IP S witch?
From: Tony Li <tli () juniper net>
Date: 27 Aug 1997 08:38:57 -0700
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
Current thread:
- RE: perf #s for GRF vs 7500 Re: Anyone Deployed Ascend's GRF IP S witch? Paul Peterson (Aug 27)
- RE: perf #s for GRF vs 7500 Re: Anyone Deployed Ascend's GRF IP S witch? Nathan Stratton (Aug 27)
- Re: perf #s for GRF vs 7500 Re: Anyone Deployed Ascend's GRF IP S witch? Tony Li (Aug 27)
- Re: perf #s for GRF vs 7500 Re: Anyone Deployed Ascend's GRF IP S witch? Rob Skrobola (Aug 27)
- Re: perf #s for GRF vs 7500 Re: Anyone Deployed Ascend's GRF IP S witch? Charles Sprickman (Aug 27)
- Re: perf #s for GRF vs 7500 Re: Anyone Deployed Ascend's GRF IP S witch? Rob Skrobola (Aug 27)
- Re: perf #s for GRF vs 7500 Re: Anyone Deployed Ascend's GRF IP S witch? Rob Skrobola (Aug 27)