perf #s for GRF vs 7500 Re: Anyone Deployed Ascend's GRF IP S witch?

Wed Aug 27 17:22:37 UTC 1997

Would you be less happy with these boxes if they didn't have "Bay Command
Console"?  And if it weren't available, what would you use?

Charles

~~~~~~~~~					~~~~~~~~~~~
Charles Sprickman 				Internet Channel
INCH System Administration Team			(212)243-5200
spork at inch.com					access at inch.com

On Wed, 27 Aug 1997, Rob Skrobola wrote:

> Date: Wed, 27 Aug 1997 13:02:33 -0400
> From: Rob Skrobola <rjs at ans.net>
> To: Tony Li <tli at juniper.net>
> Cc: Paul Peterson <paulp at winterlan.com>, nanog at merit.edu
> 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 <tli at juniper.net>
> 
>   >paulp at winterlan.com (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
> 