From owner-freebsd-isp Tue Jun 18 23:18:28 1996 Return-Path: owner-isp Received: (from root@localhost) by freefall.freebsd.org (8.7.5/8.7.3) id XAA16311 for isp-outgoing; Tue, 18 Jun 1996 23:18:28 -0700 (PDT) Received: from lynx.its.unimelb.edu.au (lynx.its.unimelb.EDU.AU [128.250.20.151]) by freefall.freebsd.org (8.7.5/8.7.3) with SMTP id XAA16306 for ; Tue, 18 Jun 1996 23:18:23 -0700 (PDT) Received: (from danny@localhost) by lynx.its.unimelb.edu.au (8.6.11/8.6.9) id QAA12216; Wed, 19 Jun 1996 16:16:48 +1000 Date: Wed, 19 Jun 1996 16:16:46 +1000 (EST) From: "Daniel O'Callaghan" To: Jim Dixon cc: Chris Watson , freebsd-isp@freebsd.org Subject: Re: BGP on a cisco 2500 series In-Reply-To: Message-ID: MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; charset=US-ASCII Sender: owner-isp@freebsd.org X-Loop: FreeBSD.org Precedence: bulk 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