Thanks Mike. Yes indeed, very helpful.
Maybe for the record, why would anybody choose BR-MLX-MR2-X over BR-MLX-MR2-M? They seems to price comparably. I got told offlist that the X has twice the CAM capacitify of the X, but both work fine. Only drawback, if any blade in the chassis is not X then the X card will work as an M card. Since I question everything, I just would like to get this confirmed. Is that accurate? If yes, why would anybody pick an M rather than an X? Thanks --- Alex 2013/2/12 Mike Allen <[email protected]> > Hi, as mentioned by the other guys, CAM=FIB, and is 1M v4 routes per > 'tower' on the line card. There are two towers on most of the 10g modules, > a single tower on the 1 gig modules. Each tower is 2 or 4 ports (4 or 8 > port module, respectively). This is on the -X, or XMR modules. The -M, or > MLX modules are half that. Once you start dividing up the cam for v6, the > math changes quickly, since v6 entries take up 4 times as much as a v4 > entry. > > For RIB, the MR is capable of 10M routes, it has 2GB SDRAM. The MR2 is > twice as much memory, and will support up to 15M routes. The RIB handles > v4 and v6 routes differently than the CAM, and thus does not have the same > loss for integrating v6 routes, they are handled much the same with similar > numbers. > > Hope that helps. > > Mike > > > On Mon, Feb 11, 2013 at 2:31 PM, Alex HM <[email protected]> wrote: > >> Thanks Jay, Niels. >> >> I can’t find any figures on the capabilities of the MLXe with >> BR-MLX-MR2-M management card regarding RIB and/or FIB, thus my concern. >> Attached >> is an extracted table from a CER presentation. I have no clue how these >> figures reads as they are crude figures – the datasheet of the MLX mentions >> 10M BGP routes but it also state depending on the configuration, so I don’t >> take this one for granted. >> >> Although not my primary question, I'd be very keen on aggregating as many >> prefixes as possible, especially the polluting /24, since most of these >> small networks who usually de-aggregate are doing that on the sole purpose >> of tiering their traffic commits for $ reasons. AFAIK it takes hundreds of >> hand-written statements and RIR records processing to achieve that. If >> somebody has a hit for that too, I am a buyer :-) >> >> --- Alex >> >> >> 2013/2/11 Niels Bakker <[email protected]> >> >>> * [email protected] (Alex HM) [Mon 11 Feb 2013, 22:51 CET]: >>> >>> I am considering running 8 eBGP sessions with full-route on each >>>> (approx. 3'500'000 prefixes expected). As far as I could figure out, the >>>> CAM limit depends on the CAM profile. The XMR seems to support 1M IPv4 >>>> prefixes in ipv4 profile mode and 512K on MLX. These figures are according >>>> to "CAM partition profiles" of the MLX Configuration Manual. >>>> >>> >>> Prefixes from your 8 eBGP sessions will form your RIB. The best routes >>> are then placed into the FIB. That's where you may hit CAM partitioning >>> limits. >>> >>> I'm not quite sure what the limit on RIB size is but 3.5M will fit just >>> fine memory-wise in an XMR Management Module. >>> >>> >>> -- Niels. >>> >>> -- >>> ______________________________**_________________ >>> foundry-nsp mailing list >>> [email protected] >>> http://puck.nether.net/**mailman/listinfo/foundry-nsp<http://puck.nether.net/mailman/listinfo/foundry-nsp> >>> >> >> >> _______________________________________________ >> foundry-nsp mailing list >> [email protected] >> http://puck.nether.net/mailman/listinfo/foundry-nsp >> > >
_______________________________________________ foundry-nsp mailing list [email protected] http://puck.nether.net/mailman/listinfo/foundry-nsp
