North American Network Operators Group

Date Prev | Date Next | Date Index | Thread Index | Author Index | Historical

Routers RAM and BGP table bloat

  • From: Ben Butler
  • Date: Fri Oct 21 07:28:48 2005

Your mail has been scanned by InterScan VirusWall.


Apologies if this is not deemed operational enough.  Further to the
debate about prefixes / v6 / multihomeing etc etc.  The growing size of
the route table, de-aged networks and increasing corporate mutlihomeing
all drive up the size of the route table and brings pressure to bear on
the memory requirements of our routers.  Now while I want to steer well
clear of the my box is better than your box discussion - I was wondering
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 can always go out and spend 5K per box on NPE G1 cards for each
router, but operationally I don't need faster processors but I do need
more RAM and I don't really see why I should be forced by Cisco to
purchase an expensive upgrade just because they say 256MB is the maximum
when I suspect we would be able to get away with sticking in a large

Anyone got any thoughts on whether this would work or not?

It must be costing us all a small operational fortune in router upgrades
brought about by the growing BGP table size.  And yes I do know that if
I was running Quagga on a PC I could have 4GB of inexpensive RAM very
easily, but I want to avoid the x is better than y discussion.

Kind Regards

Ben Butler
C2 Internet Ltd
Globe House
The Gullet
T +44-(0)845-658-0020
F +44-(0)845-658-0070

All quotes & services from C2 are bound by our standard terms and
conditions which are available on our website at: