'
Subject: Re: [c-nsp] BGP router process using way more memory on one system
Drew Weaver wrote on 24/05/2020 19:20:
> We have two routers that have a mirrored configuration. Peers, BGP
> configuration, everything. Exactly the same [except for IP addresses]
>
> One of the router
Drew Weaver wrote on 24/05/2020 19:20:
We have two routers that have a mirrored configuration. Peers, BGP
configuration, everything. Exactly the same [except for IP
addresses]
One of the routers BGP router process is holding 617576024. The other
is holding 577596716.
The one that is holding
Hello,
We have two routers that have a mirrored configuration. Peers, BGP
configuration, everything. Exactly the same [except for IP addresses]
One of the routers BGP router process is holding 617576024. The other is
holding 577596716.
The one that is holding more appears to be suffering from
Hi Guys, High cpu from BGP router process started ~48 hours ago - Happens
every 30 seconds (Cisco 7200, NPE-G2normal load is 45-50% cpu) #sh
processes cpu sorted
CPU utilization for five seconds: 86%/44%; one minute: 53%; five minutes: 50%
PID Runtime(ms) Invoked uSecs 5Sec
Take a look at this
http://www.cisco.com/en/US/tech/tk365/technologies_tech_note09186a00809d16f0.shtml
This is almost always due to route churn. Take a look at your routing
table (global and/or VRF) for routes that recently updated (show ip
route | i 0:00) and that might give you some clues as to
On (2011-08-17 02:07 +0200), Lars Eidsheim wrote:
- Load times of the full BGP table will be higher than the NPE-G1/2 - do
anyone know the respective load times? Do you expect to see 1 minute or 10
minutes?
SUP720-3BXL can load BGP table in under 1min, but NPE-G1 can do lot better.
But
It might be not directly related to your request but make sure you know
in advance the amount of prefixes to load with BGP with sup720-3BXL as
max tcam size is by default set in config=512K. We had an issue where
the router crashed because of the number of prefixes reached max tcam
512K
On Wednesday, August 17, 2011 07:54:11 PM Saku Ytti wrote:
SUP720-3BXL can load BGP table in under 1min, but NPE-G1
can do lot better. But initial convergence is hardly
very interesting metric.
Agree.
How the CPU handles a thrashing table, or a returning full
BGP v4 session while the CPU is
In what configuration does an NPE G1 load tables in under a minute?
I haven't seen one load a full table in anywhere near sub 1 min.
G2 yes, G1 really?
-Original Message-
From: Saku Ytti
Sent: Wednesday, August 17, 2011 7:54 AM
To: cisco-nsp@puck.nether.net
Subject: Re: [c-nsp] BGP
On (2011-08-17 13:48 -0400), Scott Granados wrote:
In what configuration does an NPE G1 load tables in under a minute?
I haven't seen one load a full table in anywhere near sub 1 min.
Maybe you've not changed hold-queue or MSS size.
CSCsh81034 Bug Details
sup720 slow to upload BGP table to
On (2011-08-17 13:48 -0400), Scott Granados wrote:
In what configuration does an NPE G1 load tables in under a minute?
Just loaded from SUP720-3BXL - NPE-G1, 383k routes in under minute. And InQ
was almost all the time 0 in NPE-G1, as SUP720-3BXL wasn't sending fast enough.
Router had other
Thank you all for the feedback on the subject. It is much appreciated.
Looking at the facts that the sup720 engine will hold full bgp table and do 30
mpps (400 mpps with dfc), it beats the 3945 (982 kpps), npe-g2 (2 mpps) it
looks like a good investment compared to raw performance and needs.
On 8/14/11 8:35 PM, Pete Lumbis wrote:
Bottom line, I would under no situation ever consider NPE-G[12] for forwarding
Internet peering traffic (wording chosen carefully:). And I have lot of love
for them.
A completely fair statement, it all comes down to throughput
requirements. A hardware
The Sup720 on a 6k/7600 won't be what you are looking for in a large
peering environment. I'd suggest an NPE-G2 if the 7200 is still
suiting you needs and only needs a small upgrade.
You could also look at moving to an ASR1k platform which I think can
do 10GE and still provides the investment
On (2011-08-13 10:27 -0400), Pete Lumbis wrote:
The Sup720 on a 6k/7600 won't be what you are looking for in a large
peering environment. I'd suggest an NPE-G2 if the 7200 is still
suiting you needs and only needs a small upgrade.
Majority of Internet traffic is still being pushed by 6500
On Friday, August 12, 2011 09:31:08 PM Lars Eidsheim wrote:
I am planning to upgrade our BGP edge from a Cisco
7200/NPE-G1. The NPE-G1 suits our needs at the moment,
but as we are looking to interconnect with more
services, do more localpeerings and implement IPv6 in
near future this might a
From: Lars Eidsheim l...@intellit.no
To: cisco-nsp@puck.nether.net cisco-nsp@puck.nether.net
Sent: Friday, August 12, 2011 7:31 AM
Subject: [c-nsp] BGP router upgrade
Hi all,
I am looking for a thoughts about a BGP edge router upgrade.
I am planning to upgrade
Hi all
I have 2 Cisco ME6524 , i want to deploy them as border routers (i.e. BGP
routers)The specifications are as below
cisco ME-C6524GT-8S (R7000) processor (revision 1.3) with 458752K/65536K bytes
of memory.Processor board ID CAT1210C00SR7000 CPU at 300Mhz, Implementation
0x27, Rev 3.3,
Yes this switch is fine for running BGP with the caveat that you won't
be able to take a full BGP table on this hardware. I believe the
hardware TCAM is limited to about 250,000 routes.
You will most certainly want to upgrade that IOS though. It's years out
of date. You should find that
On Wed, 12 Jan 2011 23:04:28 +1100, Reuben Farrelly
reuben-cisco-...@reub.net wrote:
Yes this switch is fine for running BGP with the caveat that you won't
be able to take a full BGP table on this hardware. I believe the
hardware TCAM is limited to about 250,000 routes.
Yep. The ME6500 is
can it handle full BGP table ?
Date: Wed, 12 Jan 2011 13:19:06 +0100
From: ma...@linuxgoeroe.dhs.org
To: cisco-nsp@puck.nether.net
Subject: Re: [c-nsp] BGP Router
On Wed, 12 Jan 2011 23:04:28 +1100, Reuben Farrelly
reuben-cisco-...@reub.net wrote:
Yes this switch is fine for running
On 12/01/2011 14:13, Mohammad Khalil wrote:
can it handle full BGP table ?
No.
Nick
___
cisco-nsp mailing list cisco-nsp@puck.nether.net
https://puck.nether.net/mailman/listinfo/cisco-nsp
archive at http://puck.nether.net/pipermail/cisco-nsp/
how do i filter the routes i want ?
Date: Wed, 12 Jan 2011 15:36:37 +
From: n...@foobar.org
To: eng_m...@hotmail.com
CC: ma...@linuxgoeroe.dhs.org; cisco-nsp@puck.nether.net
Subject: Re: [c-nsp] BGP Router
On 12/01/2011 14:13, Mohammad Khalil wrote:
can it handle full BGP table
On 12/01/2011 15:41, Mohammad Khalil wrote:
how do i filter the routes i want ?
with prefix lists, or distribution lists, as-path access lists, or
route-maps, depending on your requirements.
The question you really need to ask yourself is what am I trying to do?,
because once you have
Just checking something that I haven't been able to verify online...
Changing the bgp router-id manually will require you to clear the bgp
sessions? Correct?
Thanks!!!
___
cisco-nsp mailing list cisco-nsp@puck.nether.net
PM
To: cisco-nsp@puck.nether.net
Subject: [c-nsp] BGP router-id - Chaos?
Just checking something that I haven't been able to verify online...
Changing the bgp router-id manually will require you to clear the bgp
sessions? Correct?
Thanks
Oh that's lovely :) Thanks for the heads up all!
-Original Message-
From: Paul G. Timmins [mailto:ptimm...@clearrate.com]
Sent: Wednesday, July 15, 2009 2:06 PM
To: Jeff Cartier; cisco-nsp@puck.nether.net
Subject: RE: [c-nsp] BGP router-id - Chaos?
As far as I know, changing the router
I tried in my lab with two boxes
28xx-76xx
28xx is running 12.4(15)T9
76xx is running 12.2(33)SRB6
eBGP between the boxes.
I changed the route-id manually on 28xx
2800#sh ip bgp sum
BGP router identifier 10.10.10.1, local AS number 1020
BGP table
Re Gert, re Rossella
[EMAIL PROTECTED] (Gert Doering) wrote:
On Wed, Jun 04, 2008 at 09:43:54AM -0700, Rossella Mariotti-Jones wrote:
This is good to know, thanks.
We're going to have at least two ISPs possibly add more in the future,
and a 100Mb pipe to it, which will grow to 200Mb soon.
On Fri, Jun 06, 2008 at 08:33:13AM +0200, Elmar K. Bins wrote:
Re Gert, re Rossella
[EMAIL PROTECTED] (Gert Doering) wrote:
On Wed, Jun 04, 2008 at 09:43:54AM -0700, Rossella Mariotti-Jones wrote:
This is good to know, thanks.
We're going to have at least two ISPs possibly add more
On Fri, Jun 06, 2008 at 08:33:13AM +0200, Elmar K. Bins wrote:
My gut feeling is go with a 7301 or 7200/NPE-G1.
Why? Because it can deliver the 200 Mbit/s bandwidth, and it's a
simple architecture - everything is software, and there is lots less
hidden surprises than with the 6500/7600
On Fri, Jun 06, 2008 at 09:21:51AM -0700, bill fumerola wrote:
Why is it, btw, that IOS doesn't use both CPU kernels there? Or did I miss
an IOS version that started doing that? (still on 12.3T here)
i believe the 2nd CPU can only be enabled for some very specific features:
On Fri, Jun 06, 2008 at 09:04:05PM +0400, Alexandre Snarskii wrote:
I suppose, You've heard not about Cisco, but about Juniper.
no, i know what i said and it's accurate.
They ported FreeBSD to MIPS and then donated MIPS code back to FreeBSD:
http://www.freebsd.org/news/newsflash.html
25
Hi,
On Wed, Jun 04, 2008 at 09:43:54AM -0700, Rossella Mariotti-Jones wrote:
This is good to know, thanks.
We're going to have at least two ISPs possibly add more in the future,
and a 100Mb pipe to it, which will grow to 200Mb soon. Right now we only
have a DS3 and a lot of the times it gets
Hello all, we're looking to buy a router on which to run BGP that can
take full BGP routes, I know all Cisco routers (1800 up) with Advanced
IP services IOS will do BGP and I've been told that if we max out the
memory we'll be fine with any router. We're going to need some ports (up
to 24) in this
On Wed, 4 Jun 2008, Rossella Mariotti-Jones wrote:
Hello all, we're looking to buy a router on which to run BGP that can
take full BGP routes, I know all Cisco routers (1800 up) with Advanced
IP services IOS will do BGP and I've been told that if we max out the
memory we'll be fine with any
Hi folks.
Looking for some input on a network design. Today, pair of 6509's with
Sup2/MSFC2 and a Cisco 12012 GSR make up the distribution and core routing.
What I'm considering is removing the 12012 because of the space it consumes
(does all BGP today) and replacing it with a pair of
Hi,
On Wed, Mar 26, 2008 at 12:02:15PM -0400, Paul Stewart wrote:
What I'm considering is removing the 12012 because of the space it consumes
(does all BGP today) and replacing it with a pair of 7606's Sup720-3BXL etc
For BGP edge that's feeding 3 full BGP transit feeds and a couple hundred
Paul
-Original Message-
From: Gert Doering [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
Sent: Wednesday, March 26, 2008 1:13 PM
To: Paul Stewart
Cc: cisco-nsp@puck.nether.net
Subject: Re: [c-nsp] BGP Router Considerations
Hi,
On Wed, Mar 26, 2008 at 12:02:15PM -0400, Paul Stewart wrote:
What I'm
To: Paul Stewart
Cc: cisco-nsp@puck.nether.net
Subject: Re: [c-nsp] BGP Router Considerations
Hi,
On Wed, Mar 26, 2008 at 12:02:15PM -0400, Paul Stewart wrote:
What I'm considering is removing the 12012 because of the space it
consumes
(does all BGP today) and replacing it with a pair of 7606's
Conversation: [c-nsp] BGP Router Considerations
Subject: Re: [c-nsp] BGP Router Considerations
Or you may want to look into the new ASR routers. They are supposed to be
positioned between the 7200's and the 7600's, but it doesn't sound like you
are really pushing that much traffic through the system
-VPN, CQS-ISS
Senior Network Engineer
Coleman Technologies, Inc.
954-298-1697
-Original Message-
From: David Curran [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
Sent: Wednesday, March 26, 2008 4:03 PM
To: Fred Reimer; Gert Doering; Paul Stewart
Cc: cisco-nsp@puck.nether.net
Subject: Re: [c-nsp] BGP Router
42 matches
Mail list logo
