Adrian Minta wrote: > Jon Lewis wrote: > >> On Mon, 29 Oct 2007, Adrian Minta wrote: >> >> >>>> 1. Handling approximately 500Mbps each way (about 1Gbp total >>>> throughput) >>>> 2. Handling BGP peerings with up to 20 peers with total of 200-300 >>>> prefixes >>>> 3. Complete BGP support (communities, filtering etc.) >>>> 4. Of course boxes are basically acting as router, so both ports are >>>> separate L3 ports. >>>> >>>> >>> C3560 and c3750 are both switches witch means line rate speeds as long >>> as your number of routes is smaller than TCAM size. One prefix more and >>> everything goes kaboom. >>> I suggest to take a look at Cisco 7201 router. >>> >> Why? 300 routes on a 3560 is nothing. I've done around 1300 routes >> and 2-3 BGP peers on a 3550. 20 peers seems like maybe a lot, but as >> long as they're all reasonably stable, I suspect it'd work and be much >> cheaper than a 7201. >> > Are you sure that nobody is accidentally injecting more routes ? > You will always be on the edge. C3550 was a better switch than C3560 IMHO. > > If the max prefixes received doesn't exceed 8000 unicast routes with sdm prefer routing 3560 it's capable of dealing with all that bgp peers. I'm currently running 2 bgp sessions with a total of bandwidth of 200Mbps and ~3400 prefixes recived from each peer ##sh ip bgp su 4051 network entries using 473967 bytes of memory BGP using 1401759 total bytes of memory Neighbor V AS MsgRcvd MsgSent TblVer InQ OutQ Up/Down State/PfxRcd 81.x.x.x 4 X 56484 33871 76815 0 0 3w2d 3394 89.x.x.x 4 X 90394 33871 76815 0 0 3w2d 3477
#sh proc cpu | i CPU CPU utilization for five seconds: 23%/0%; one minute: 22%; five minutes: 22% And if a peer is stupid enough to flood you with prefixes there is neighbor maximum-prefix. _______________________________________________ cisco-nsp mailing list [email protected] https://puck.nether.net/mailman/listinfo/cisco-nsp archive at http://puck.nether.net/pipermail/cisco-nsp/
