Re: Routers RAM and BGP table bloat

[Robert E.Seastrom <rs () seastrom com>]

Nils Ketelsen <nils.ketelsen () kuehne-nagel com> writes:

> Ben Butler wrote:
>
> > if anyone had a view on what would happen if I managed to source an
> > SDRAM of 512MB / 1GB of the same specification as the 256MB Cisco
> > compatible memory that you use in an 7200 NPE225.  Cisco say the maximum
> > ram for that NPE is a pitiful 256MB, I am sure the memory manufacturers
> > will have made larger SDRAMs, while recognising it would be fully
> > unsupported what would happen if we tried to stick in a larger memory
> > module in the NPE....
>
> I am just guessing here, but if the manufacturer says 256MB is the
> maximum, I would expect that the unit is not able to address more than
> 256MB memory, regardless of the amount you plug in to it.

That's not entirely a reasonable conclusion - the npe225 only
"supported" 128m and a lot of us were running them with 256m.  

> Apart from the fact what is better than something else: I think it is
> very brave to use unsupported hardware to operate a network. If
> something fails, you are on your own then. No support from the vendor.

Of course, if you don't have the hardware under support contract in
the first place...

> One of the things where being brave and being insane are only seperated
> by a very thin line ;-)

Indeed.

                                        ---Rob