Date: Wed, 19 Jun 1996 16:16:46 +1000 (EST) From: "Daniel O'Callaghan" <danny@lynx.its.unimelb.edu.au> To: Jim Dixon <jdd@vbc.net> Cc: Chris Watson <scanner@webspan.net>, freebsd-isp@freebsd.org Subject: Re: BGP on a cisco 2500 series Message-ID: <Pine.BSI.3.91.960619160836.12192A-100000@lynx.its.unimelb.edu.au> In-Reply-To: <Pine.BSD/.3.91.960619002607.11078G-100000@uk1.vbc.net>
next in thread | previous in thread | raw e-mail | index | archive | help
On Wed, 19 Jun 1996, Jim Dixon wrote: > On Tue, 18 Jun 1996, Chris Watson wrote: > > > I saw this topic discussed briefly on one of the lists. > > I didnt pay much attention till now. My boss wants to go multihomed and > > run BGP. We have a 2501 cisco router, and i'm pretty confident theres no > > way on gods green earth we can do it on a 2501. both serials are used. > > And i dont think it has the ability to hold a full routing table? > > I think that a full routing table takes about 6 MB these days. The > Cisco 2501 comes with 2 MB and you can add 16 MB for something like $300 > if you don't buy the SIMM from Cisco. Use one Cisco to handle one feed > and the other Cisco to handle the other feed. If you get a lot of route > flaps, increase the dampening. That's interesting. Telstra Internet in Australia is suggesting a 64MB router for full BGP4 peering with them. Now I don't know much (anything) about how routes are stored in a router's RAM, but 34,000 routes x 32 bytes (net, mask, gw, status, ASN, etc) gives about 1 MB of data. I'm quite prepared to be out by a factor of 5 or even 10, but why would Telstra be suggesting a 64MB router for their peers? (see http://www.telstra.net/np.html) The fact that they are attempting to charge US$1600 per month for peering with them suggests that they don't want peers, but could the 64 MB requirement be an additional attempt to dissuade peering? Danny
Want to link to this message? Use this URL: <https://mail-archive.FreeBSD.org/cgi/mid.cgi?Pine.BSI.3.91.960619160836.12192A-100000>