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

[Rob Skrobola <rjs () ans net>]

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