Christian, I need to check this in the lab but if you look at the vpn table are we not allocating a VPNV4 label for each prefix when it's in the VRF?
I know some improvements to BGP were made in SRB2 but I haven't looked the exact details up to see if it would impact this particular scneario. Rodney On Fri, Oct 19, 2007 at 01:35:35PM +0200, Christian Bering wrote: > Hi all, > > Putting a full Internet routing table inside a VRF instead of in the > global routing table, we see BGP convergence times about a factor 10 > higher. > > As far as we can tell, it's mostly the BGP process eating CPU time, so > it doesn't seem to be a matter of label allocation or FIB/TCAM > programming. > > What makes the BGP process behave differently in a VRF than it does in > global routing table? > > Is it because the code hasn't been optimised for this? Or a hardware > issue? > > Any knobs to adjust? > > Any improvements to this behaviour in SRB2 over SXE, SXF or SRA? > > -- > Regards > Christian Bering > IP engineer, nianet a/s > Phone: (+45) 7020 8730 > _______________________________________________ > cisco-nsp mailing list [email protected] > https://puck.nether.net/mailman/listinfo/cisco-nsp > archive at http://puck.nether.net/pipermail/cisco-nsp/ _______________________________________________ cisco-nsp mailing list [email protected] https://puck.nether.net/mailman/listinfo/cisco-nsp archive at http://puck.nether.net/pipermail/cisco-nsp/
