the 1072 allows alot of other stuff to be going on now and in the future we "just enoughed" with the rb1100ahx2 for simplicity and choked out of the gate
On Fri, May 12, 2017 at 11:19 AM, Mike Hammett <[email protected]> wrote: > That's because the BGP core was already maxed out. Once it's maxed, more > load is still maxed, just now you have longer and longer delays. > > > > ----- > Mike Hammett > Intelligent Computing Solutions <http://www.ics-il.com/> > <https://www.facebook.com/ICSIL> > <https://plus.google.com/+IntelligentComputingSolutionsDeKalb> > <https://www.linkedin.com/company/intelligent-computing-solutions> > <https://twitter.com/ICSIL> > Midwest Internet Exchange <http://www.midwest-ix.com/> > <https://www.facebook.com/mdwestix> > <https://www.linkedin.com/company/midwest-internet-exchange> > <https://twitter.com/mdwestix> > The Brothers WISP <http://www.thebrotherswisp.com/> > <https://www.facebook.com/thebrotherswisp> > > > <https://www.youtube.com/channel/UCXSdfxQv7SpoRQYNyLwntZg> > ------------------------------ > *From: *"Matt" <[email protected]> > *To: *[email protected] > *Sent: *Friday, May 12, 2017 10:53:44 AM > *Subject: *Re: [AFMUG] rb1100ahx2 bgp load > > We used a CCR1036 to do full routes on dual gigabit BGP peers. Turning up > IPv6 with full routes did not seem to change the load at all. I really > like the CCR routers. > > > On Tue, May 9, 2017 at 10:00 AM, Steve Jones <[email protected]> > wrote: > >> We are running OSPF and an EOIP tunnel. Eventually MPLS/VPLS. at this >> point, this isn't really a job for Mikrotik is it? The contractor is a >> multivendor shop, with a Cisco preference. We just stayed with the >> rb1100ahx2 because its what we use throughout the network, we knew it might >> be underpowered for this role. >> >> I assume when we turn up IPV6 it will basically double the demand also >> with a second stack running? >> >> On Tue, May 9, 2017 at 7:50 AM, Dennis Burgess <[email protected]> >> wrote: >> >>> 1100ahx2 is not a good bgp router, go with a CCR 1036 at min, else >>> PowerRouter would be preferred. However, the CCRs can handle it as long as >>> you don’t load them with other stuffs. >>> >>> >>> >>> >>> >>> *Dennis Burgess** –** Network Solution Engineer – Consultant * >>> >>> MikroTik Certified Trainer/Consultant >>> <http://www.linktechs.net/productcart/pc/viewcontent.asp?idpage=5> – >>> MTCNA, MTCRE, MTCWE, MTCTCE, MTCINE >>> >>> >>> >>> For Wireless Hardware/Routers visit www.linktechs.net >>> >>> Radio Frequency Coverages: www.towercoverage.com >>> >>> Office: 314-735-0270 <(314)%20735-0270> >>> >>> E-Mail: [email protected] >>> >>> >>> >>> *From:* Af [mailto:[email protected]] *On Behalf Of *Steve Jones >>> *Sent:* Monday, May 8, 2017 10:43 PM >>> *To:* [email protected] >>> *Subject:* [AFMUG] rb1100ahx2 bgp load >>> >>> >>> >>> We turned up BGP on one of our routers today, 2 peers, full routes, this >>> is just one upstream, we will be turning up bgp with another provider >>> shortly elsewhere on the network, I assume those tables will make their way >>> to this router. >>> >>> load averaged 4-12% prior to turning up BGP now its running 60-90, even >>> occasionally pegged >>> >>> >>> >>> is this a matter of tuning BGP and ROS packages, or is this just too >>> much for the router? this is only at 150mbps, as we increase capacity I >>> feel we have already scaled out of this router if its not a >>> misconfiguration of something on my end >>> >>> >>> >>> >>> >>> [image: Inline image 1] >>> >> >> > >
