Re: perf #s for GRF vs 7500 Re: Anyone Deployed Ascend's GRF IP S witch?

[Rob Skrobola <rjs () ans net>]

  >From: Charles Sprickman <spork () inch com>
  >Subject: Re: perf #s for GRF vs 7500 Re: Anyone Deployed Ascend's GRF IP S witch? 

  >Would you be less happy with these boxes if they didn't have "Bay Command
  >Console"?  

To be more exact- For our purposes, bcc is an absolute necessity. 

  >And if it weren't available, what would you use?

At the time we made this choice, no other box fulfilled our
needs. Now.. I wouldn't want to speculate publicly. :)

                RobS


  >Charles
  >
  >~~~~~~~~~                                    ~~~~~~~~~~~
  >Charles Sprickman                            Internet Channel
  >INCH System Administration Team                      (212)243-5200
  >spork () inch com                                    access () inch com
  >
  >On Wed, 27 Aug 1997, Rob Skrobola wrote:
  >
  >> Date: Wed, 27 Aug 1997 13:02:33 -0400
  >> From: Rob Skrobola <rjs () ans net>
  >> To: Tony Li <tli () juniper net>
  >> Cc: Paul Peterson <paulp () winterlan com>, nanog () merit edu
  >> Subject: Re: perf #s for GRF vs 7500 Re: Anyone Deployed Ascend's GRF IP S witch? 
  >> 
  >> Folks,
  >>    We have bcn/bln's out there with over 60 bgp peers on a 64Mb
  >> ARE. Works fine. Taking in about 63000 pps (170 Mbps) over 6 interfaces
  >> with a high of 20k pps when I looked a couple of minutes ago..Not
  >> untypical of the 30 bcn's and bln's on our network..
  >>    So the 4-6 Mb per peer thing is inaccurate. On the way high
  >> side. 
  >>            RobS
  >> 
  >>                    
  >> 
  >> BGP Peers
  >> ---------
  >> 
  >>         Local                Remote         Remote Peer    Connection BGP Total 
  >>     Address/Port          Address/Port        AS   Mode      State    Ver Routes
  >> --------------------- --------------------- ------ ------- ---------- --- ------
  >> ...
  >> 
  >> 64 peers configured.
  >> 
  >> 
  >> Memory Usage Statistics (Megabytes):
  >> ------------------------------------
  >> 
  >> Slot   Total      Used      Free    %Free
  >> ----  --------  --------  --------  -----
  >>    6   61.67 M   32.82 M   28.84 M   46 %
  >> 
  >> 
  >> 
  >>   >Subject: Re: perf #s for GRF vs 7500 Re: Anyone Deployed Ascend's GRF IP S      witch?
  >>   >From: Tony Li <tli () juniper net>
  >> 
  >>   >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
  >> 
  >