Date: Wed, 19 Jun 1996 08:57:34 +0100 (BST) From: Jim Dixon <jdd@vbc.net> To: "Daniel O'Callaghan" <danny@lynx.its.unimelb.edu.au> Cc: Chris Watson <scanner@webspan.net>, freebsd-isp@freebsd.org Subject: Re: BGP on a cisco 2500 series Message-ID: <Pine.BSD/.3.91.960619084942.13373G-100000@uk1.vbc.net> In-Reply-To: <Pine.BSI.3.91.960619160836.12192A-100000@lynx.its.unimelb.edu.au>
next in thread | previous in thread | raw e-mail | index | archive | help
On Wed, 19 Jun 1996, Daniel O'Callaghan wrote: > > 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) I really would rather not got into a religious dispute, nor would I want to ... how does one say this sort of thing? ... question the bona fides of your supplier. But if I look at memory usage on a Cisco handling BGP4 peering with a single external BGP4 peer, it is roughly 6 MB for roughly 30K routes. This Cisco also peers with six other internal BGP4 peers. If you like, I can send you more detail by private email. Memory requirements shoot up when routers are handling multiple BGP4 peers at peering points where there is a lot of traffic and a lot of routes flapping. But to be honest, from the little that I know about the Internet in Australia and New Zealand, I don't see that you would have the kind of wild instability that is prevalent at the major US peering points. > 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? 8-) -- Jim Dixon VBCnet GB Ltd +44 117 929 1316 fax +44 117 927 2015 http://www.uk.vbc.net VBCnet West +1 408 971 2682 fax +1 408 971 2684
Want to link to this message? Use this URL: <https://mail-archive.FreeBSD.org/cgi/mid.cgi?Pine.BSD/.3.91.960619084942.13373G-100000>