Well, you're going to love this article. They increased the number of
networks in the core of the Internet by 25 fold to do their BGP table
capacity test!?
Nonetheless, it's a very interesting and well-written article and set of
tests, Please do let us know what you think after reading it in detail and
talking to the author.
Thanks.
Priscilla
At 10:03 PM 3/12/01, Howard C. Berkowitz wrote:
> >Hi, please have a look this site
> >
> >http://www.lightreading.com/testing/
> >
> >Have you any comment about this ? Let's us know your opinion.
> >
> >Thanx
> >Si Pitung
>
>
>Just started looking at it tonight. I will be speaking with its
>author at the IETF meeting next week. I would think long and hard
>before I'd claim any router is the "best" core router. Individual
>numbers can be misleading.
>
>I have a draft out on single-router BGP convergence time,
>http://www.isi.edu/internet-drafts/draft-berkowitz-bgpcon-00.txt. It
>is fairly rough, but starts talking about the interactions of
>multiple parameters. Unfortunately, the appendix giving various ISP
>applications for BGP routers isn't in that draft, but will be in the
>next one.
>
>It's misleading to think that all ISP routers need to be "core."
>Arguably, the highest-bandwidth "core" routers inside an ISP may not
>need to run full BGP, but have more stringent demands on OSPF, ISIS,
>and/or MPLS. Think of RFC 2547 "P" routers.
>
>An ISP POP access router might have the greatest number of BGP routes
>and paths, but not as much bandwidth requirements. If the POP router
>primarily deals with customers, it will advertise only default and
>partial routes to many of them. Only a small proportion of customers
>want full routes. A POP router will also generally accept only a
>small number of routes from customers.
>
>Interprovider routers at tier 1 are unlikely to need to exchange full
>routes Such routers are bandwidth-intense, but the definition of a
>tier 1 is that you exchange only customer routes (perhaps
>oversimplifying, but that's close) with other tier 1 providers.
>
>A revised draft will be presented at the IETF next week to the
>benchmarking methodology (BMWG) and inter-domain routing (IDR,
>responsible for BGP). This draft is coauthored by Alvaro Retana at
>Cisco, and Sue Hares and Padma Krishnaswamy at NextHop (the former
>GateD organization, which is the base for quite a number of
>implementations). Hopefully, we will also get a Juniper coauthor.
>The plan is that it will become a BMWG working group document in the
>standards track (well, as much as standards track applies to
>performance measurement documents, a subtlety of the IETF process).
>
>--
>"What Problem are you trying to solve?"
>***send Cisco questions to the list, so all can benefit -- not
>directly to me***
>
>Howard C. Berkowitz [EMAIL PROTECTED]
>Technical Director, CertificationZone.com
>Senior Mgr. IP Protocols & Algorithms, Advanced Technology Investments,
> NortelNetworks (for ID only) but Cisco stockholder!
>"retired" Certified Cisco Systems Instructor (CID) #93005
>
>_________________________________
>FAQ, list archives, and subscription info:
>http://www.groupstudy.com/list/cisco.html
>Report misconduct and Nondisclosure violations to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
________________________
Priscilla Oppenheimer
http://www.priscilla.com
_________________________________
FAQ, list archives, and subscription info: http://www.groupstudy.com/list/cisco.html
Report misconduct and Nondisclosure violations to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
