Date: Wed, 19 Jun 1996 16:16:46 +1000 (EST) From: "Daniel O'Callaghan" <danny@lynx.its.unimelb.edu.au> To: Jim Dixon <jdd@vbc.net> Cc: Chris Watson <scanner@webspan.net>, freebsd-isp@freebsd.org Subject: Re: BGP on a cisco 2500 series Message-ID: <Pine.BSI.3.91.960619160836.12192A-100000@lynx.its.unimelb.edu.au> In-Reply-To: <Pine.BSD/.3.91.960619002607.11078G-100000@uk1.vbc.net>
index | next in thread | previous in thread | raw e-mail
On Wed, 19 Jun 1996, Jim Dixon wrote: > On Tue, 18 Jun 1996, Chris Watson wrote: > > > I saw this topic discussed briefly on one of the lists. > > I didnt pay much attention till now. My boss wants to go multihomed and > > run BGP. We have a 2501 cisco router, and i'm pretty confident theres no > > way on gods green earth we can do it on a 2501. both serials are used. > > And i dont think it has the ability to hold a full routing table? > > I think that a full routing table takes about 6 MB these days. The > Cisco 2501 comes with 2 MB and you can add 16 MB for something like $300 > if you don't buy the SIMM from Cisco. Use one Cisco to handle one feed > and the other Cisco to handle the other feed. If you get a lot of route > flaps, increase the dampening. That's interesting. Telstra Internet in Australia is suggesting a 64MB router for full BGP4 peering with them. Now I don't know much (anything) about how routes are stored in a router's RAM, but 34,000 routes x 32 bytes (net, mask, gw, status, ASN, etc) gives about 1 MB of data. I'm quite prepared to be out by a factor of 5 or even 10, but why would Telstra be suggesting a 64MB router for their peers? (see http://www.telstra.net/np.html) The fact that they are attempting to charge US$1600 per month for peering with them suggests that they don't want peers, but could the 64 MB requirement be an additional attempt to dissuade peering? Dannyhome | help
Want to link to this message? Use this
URL: <https://mail-archive.FreeBSD.org/cgi/mid.cgi?Pine.BSI.3.91.960619160836.12192A-100000>