Hi, On Thu, Jun 11, 2009 at 03:57:11PM +0100, Ian MacKinnon wrote: > > "XL" or "non-XL" has nothing to do with the number of *peers*. > > > > "XL" decides on the number of prefixes that you can have in your > > forwarding table (hardware FIB) - and this will be about the same for > > "1 peer with a full BGP Table" or "20 peers with the same set of > > prefixes but just different BGP paths". > > > > A higher number of different "full table "peers is going to eat up CPU > > memory and CPU power - memory is easy (Sup720-3CXL comes with 1Gbyte > > RAM, which is sufficient for at least 10 "full table" BGP peers), but > > CPU might reach its limit with 5 full table peers and 91 others. > > I was the under the impression that the limit on these boxes > (and ASR1002 R1) was approx 1 Million routes.
True. *FIB space* routes.
> I had assumed that was the total number of routes from all your peers,
> eg we see about 280k routes in a full table,
Correct.
> so that would be approx 4 full tables.
No.
1 full table has 280k routes.
100 full tables have 280k routes as well. (But LOTS of additional BGP path
information - but those are not stored in the FIB, and don't count for
the "1 million" limit).
> Are you saying that the limit on the number of routes, is actually in
> the FIB, ie active routes, so currently would always be about 280k, and
> multiple full tables is OK.
BGP paths that don't go to the FIB are not "routes". They are just prefixes
with path info.
(In other words: yes).
gert
--
USENET is *not* the non-clickable part of WWW!
//www.muc.de/~gert/
Gert Doering - Munich, Germany [email protected]
fax: +49-89-35655025 [email protected]
pgpQ4FwMN15CO.pgp
Description: PGP signature
_______________________________________________ cisco-nsp mailing list [email protected] https://puck.nether.net/mailman/listinfo/cisco-nsp archive at http://puck.nether.net/pipermail/cisco-nsp/
