On Tue, 5 Jun 2001, George Robbins wrote:
> OTOH, if you're not taking full routes, the 3640 has more than enough CPU
> to handle 3 full t1's to ethernet. Currently, flapping full routes will
> eat anything less than an RSP-4 or VXR-based 7200. NPE-150's, 3600's
> RSP-2's start running out of CPU and memory, if you're not seeing problems
> now, give it another year of bloat...
Very true. I've got one sitting at one end of a T1, with an ethernet. No
sweat. I have another, with three T1's, two to one upstream and the other
to another upstream. Both provide me full tables. I have still another
sitting at the end of an ethernet, running as a low-end route-views
server. It takes 4 (IIRC) full BGP tables. For those interested in
having a look, it's at:
crc-route-views.core.crc.ca, or 142.92.10.82.
In other words, the 3640 is a good step up from the old 4000's, adequate
for small ISP's with T1's and multihomed to two providers with full
tables...but, you will evetually hit a ceiling, and need to go beyond...
>
> George
>
>
> > Date: Tue, 5 Jun 2001 17:37:41 -0400 (EDT)
> > From: "William F. Maton" <wmaton@ryouko.dgim.crc.ca>
> > Reply-To: wmaton@ryouko.dgim.crc.ca
> > To: cisco-nsp@puck.nether.net
> > Subject: Re: [nsp] Real world 3640 experience question.....
> >
> > On Tue, 5 Jun 2001, Tom Mastre wrote:
> >
> > > Anyone using a 3640 to run 3 T-1 connections to 3 different up-streams? Does
> > > the 3640 have enough cpu, memory, chutzpa to run them well?
> >
> > So far, so good, yes. But, if one of those full BGP peers hiccups, you'll
> > definately see the thing churn. It's partly for that reason and partly
> > for the fact that Cisco insist on under-designing for memory that I'm
> > looking at upgrading the 3640 to something else....
> >
> >
> > > tia
> > > Tom
> >
> > wfms
>
wfms
This archive was generated by hypermail 2b29 : Sun Aug 04 2002 - 04:12:40 EDT