|
North American Network Operators Group Date Prev | Date Next | Date Index | Thread Index | Author Index | Historical Re: perf #s for GRF vs 7500 Re: Anyone Deployed Ascend's GRF IP S witch?
>From: Charles Sprickman <[email protected]> >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 >[email protected] [email protected] > >On Wed, 27 Aug 1997, Rob Skrobola wrote: > >> Date: Wed, 27 Aug 1997 13:02:33 -0400 >> From: Rob Skrobola <[email protected]> >> To: Tony Li <[email protected]> >> Cc: Paul Peterson <[email protected]>, [email protected] >> 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 <[email protected]> >> >> >[email protected] (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 >> >
|