I can vouch for the asr9k in regards too performance. But the software still is not as stable as you might want. On May 2, 2013 9:52 AM, <[email protected]> wrote:
> Hello Simon. > We are using asr1k for peering purposes and Sup2T in the core. We also > have some sup 720 as PE routers. > We find that the ASR1001 is alot faster at establishing our BGP sessions > than both sup 720 and 2T. I would look into the ASR9001. Seems to be much > better box than an ASR 1k box when you spec it to be able to push around > 40G. Often turns out cheaper than ASR1k boxes also. > > Gustav Uhlander > Communication & Infrastructure Engineer > > Steria AB > Kungsbron 13 > Box 169 > SE-101 23 Stockholm > Sweden > > Tel: +46 8 622 42 15 > Fax: +46 8 622 42 23 > Mobile: +46 70 962 71 03 > [email protected] > www.steria.se > > > [email protected] skrev: ----- > Till: [email protected] > Från: Simon Lockhart ** > Sänt av: [email protected] > Datum: 2012-12-07 14:29 > Ärende: [c-nsp] Making SUP720 cope better under BGP load > > All, > > I'm currently using SUP720-3BXL's in my BGP border devices. Obviously the > SUP720 is not a particularly fast CPU, so it is pretty slow at bringing up > a > lot of BGP sessions. > > On one particular box, I've got 250 BGP neighbours - 1 full table transit, > 2 > IGP to route-reflectors, and the rest are peering sessions at an IXP. > Recently, > the IXP did maintenance causing the interface to drop, and it bought the > box to > its knees. The "BGP Router" process takes all the available CPU while it > tries > to re-establish the BGP sessions. While this is happening, the SUP720 > seems to > give up processing other stuff in a timely manner - and I see MPLS LDP > drop, > OSPF neighbours drop, and then BGP sessions drop due to hold timer expires. > With all these drops, it causes even more CPU load, and the cycle > continues. > > I've been talking to other SUP720 using ISPs, and it seems that some see > this > same effect, and others don't. > > Currently running 12.2(33)SXJ3 > > Are there any tweaks that I can apply to the IOS config to make the SUP720 > cope better in this sort of situation? I'd be happy for the BGP sessions to > take a lot longer to re-establish, if it didn't kill everything else in the > process... > > And, as a follow-on question, given that the SUP720 is so under-powered for > BGP, what other options do I have which would cope better? SUP-2T? Or, if > I need to move away from the 6500, what's good for BGP routing with about > 20-40G of throughput (i.e. 4-8 * 10GE ports)? How does the ASR9k or ASR1k > range fair for BGP performance? > > Many thanks in advance, > > Simon > _______________________________________________ > 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/ > _______________________________________________ cisco-nsp mailing list [email protected] https://puck.nether.net/mailman/listinfo/cisco-nsp archive at http://puck.nether.net/pipermail/cisco-nsp/
