Hi gert Good info. >From customer requirements and pricing point of view the idea is to replace with a nexus.
Regards Il 06/feb/2015 19:45 "Gert Doering" <[email protected]> ha scritto: > Hi, > > On Fri, Feb 06, 2015 at 03:16:26PM +0100, james list wrote: > > do anybody have numbers in terms of BGP sessions scalability oin C7600 > > SUP-720 ? > > "not that great"... > > Ours at DE-CIX has a handful of iBGP sessions and about 150 eBGP sessions > to IXP participants, and if that interface flaps, it will hickup for > about *1 hour* until everything is stable again. > > Effectively it depends on > > - number of sessions > - number of prefixes on each session ("10 each" or "50.000") > - how complicated your inbound and outbout policy is > (our policy is slightly too complicated, with as-path matches which > are not exactly performance efficient) > - whether peers can be grouped into update-groups (= same export policy) > - keepalive timers your peers have configured > (the main issue is "CPU busy -> keepalives not answered in time -> > session bouncing -> more CPU busy", which is made worse by short > keepalive timers) > > We're not deploying Sup720s for anything with "lots of BGP" anymore, and > the box in question will be replaced with an ASR9001 any day now, which > is just laughing its NPUs off on that BGP load... ("BGP convergence in 30 > seconds. done. anything more interesting to do? Any slow peer I could > nuke with outgoing updates sent over too fast for it?"). > > 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] > _______________________________________________ cisco-nsp mailing list [email protected] https://puck.nether.net/mailman/listinfo/cisco-nsp archive at http://puck.nether.net/pipermail/cisco-nsp/
