I see. But then is there any effect of having repair path installed with "bgp additional-paths install" command on platform without Hierarchical FIBs or is it purely cosmetic?
Thank you again :) On Sat, Apr 26, 2014 at 8:00 AM, Oliver Boehmer (oboehmer) < [email protected]> wrote: > > >Thank you all; so let me just see if I got this right. > > > >If we're not loadbalancing with IGP (instead there's primary/backup > >uplink) > >on edge, and not using H.FIB (with cef table output-chain build favor > >convergence-speed) and we're running full BGP table on edge routers, > >anyone > >with experience on how would flat FIB affect convergence without PIC Core > >on 7600? In other words what would be real life effect of rewriting couple > >of hundred thousand entries to point to new output interface in terms of > >convergence? > > I don't have a recent performance study, but I saw a 7600 w/ 200k IPv4 > prefixes taking ~17 seconds to rewrite all prefixes, where hierarchical > FIB cut this down to < 1 sec. > > > > >If you don't mind, could you explain part with "VPNv4 requires recirc" ? > >I'm not sure what does that mean in relation with PIC Core? > > it means it'll cut the pps performance in half for vpn traffic with H.FIB. > > > > >And if I understand, since we're already installing in CEF 'repair' path > >in > >PIC Edge scenario, then H.FIB is not really required? > > It is. We can't leverage the repair path unless we have a hierarchical FIB > structure. > > oli > > > _______________________________________________ > 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/
