Re: Nasty iBGP design issue...

From: Gert Doering (gert@greenie.muc.de)
Date: Wed Jul 04 2001 - 13:28:25 EDT


Hi,

On Wed, Jul 04, 2001 at 10:04:50AM +0100, Pegg Damon wrote:
> Interestingly, I now have values for keepalive bandwidth and processing
> overhead, for anyone who wants to take this road (I still don't have a
> viable alternative):
>
> The KEEPALIVE messages are quite short (19 octets), so we can use the
> formula 19*8/k, where k is keepalive frequency; hence 5 second keepalives
> and and 30 second holdtimer gives only 30bps i/o per neighbor.

This isn't a problem for my application (Ethernet neighbours in a DMZ
configuration), but it's good to have these figures anyway.

> Processing, according to Cisco, is negligible.

Good news! :-)

(An interesting thing that I found out is that, unlike HDLC keepalives,
the timers on boths ends to not have to be set to the same values - not
that there are specific reasons to *want* to have differing timers, but
in a multi-ISP-environment these things happen).

gert

-- 
Gert Doering
Mobile communications ... right now writing from *ICE Frankfurt/Munich*
... mobile phone: +49 177 2160221 ... or mail me:  gert@greenie.muc.de



This archive was generated by hypermail 2b29 : Sun Aug 04 2002 - 04:12:43 EDT