[nsp] l2tp-cpu load

[Matyas Szilard]

 Hi,

  We have NPE-G1 with: ~40 l2tp tunnel ~5000 session
  CPU:~50%
  Process Mem: ~100Mbyte
  Traffic:~300Mbit , ~40kpps one way
            ~60Mbit,  35kpps other way

 Regards

szicsu

> > ---- Original Message ----- 
> > From: "Hank Nussbacher" <hank at att.net.il>
> > To: "Andy Furnell" <andy at furnell.org.uk>
> > Cc: <cisco-nsp at puck.nether.net>
> > Sent: Friday, November 28, 2003 2:07 PM
> > Subject: Re: [nsp] l2tp-cpu load
> >
> >
> > > On Fri, 28 Nov 2003, Andy Furnell wrote:
> > >
> > > The 16,000 number probably came from here:
> > >
> >
>
http://www.cisco.com/application/pdf/en/us/guest/netsol/ns242/c666/ccmigration_09186a008015d4d2.pdf
> > > It refers to the NPE-G1
> > >
> > > -Hank
> > >
> > > > On Fri, Nov 28, 2003 at 11:05:26AM +0000, H S wrote:
> > > > >
> > > > > Hi !!
> > > > >
> > > > >      I have a Cisco 3640 and have set up an l2tp tunnel. I wonder
> how
> > > > > many simultaneous sessions will it support. Currently, I have an
> > average of
> > > > > 16 sessions and 26 % of CPU load. The traffic through the
interface
> is
> > not
> > > > > much (1 Mbps) and (400 pps) I?m planning to change the 3640 by a
> 7204
> > > > > (NPE-400) but I would like to know it?s limitation on this issue.
> > > > > Could anyone advise me?
> > > > >
> > > > > Thanks in advance!!!!
> > > > >
> > > > > Regards
> > > > >
> > > > > Hugo
> > > >
> > > > Hi Hugo,
> > > >
> > > > I had an NPE-400 terminating ~1500 l2tp dial sessions at around 45%
> > CPU...
> > > > This box was also handling a couple of PA-MC-E3 and a PA-MC-STM1
with
> a
> > total
> > > > traffic load of about 35mbit/sec and ~15kpps. This took some messing
> > around
> > > > to get CPU usage below 60%... PPP compression is right out the
window,
> > > > and vpdn ignore udp checksum in your global config will reduce CPU
> usage
> > by
> > > > another 10-15%. The only problems we ran into were with
virtual-access
> > > > interfaces not being re-used - the only solution for this at the
time
> > was
> > > > to reload the machine every month, but this bug may well be fixed in
a
> > more
> > > > recent IOS release. As far as IOS releases go, we had the best luck
> with
> > > > 12.2(8)T, although I've heard good things about11T and 15T, as well
as
> > 12.3
> > > > mainline.
> > > >
> > > > Remember the number of tunnels will affect performance much more
than
> > the
> > > > number of sessions... if you can aggregate the l2tp tunnels so only
> one
> > tunnel
> > > > is presented to your LNS you'll get much better performance than if
> > you're
> > > > forming hundreds of l2tp tunnels to hundreds of LACs with a similar
> > number
> > > > of active sessions.
> > > >
> > > > If the cash is there you'll have get much better performance from an
> > NPE-G1.
> > > > >From speaking to people using them as a broadband LNS they seem to
be
> > able
> > > > to take an STM-1's worth of traffic in about 5500 sessions without
> > breaking
> > > > a sweat :)
> > > >
> > > > A
> > > >
> > > > --
> > > > Andy Furnell
> > > > andy at furnell.org.uk
> > > > _______________________________________________
> > > > cisco-nsp mailing listcisco-nsp at puck.nether.net
> > > > https://puck.nether.net/mailman/listinfo/cisco-nsp
> > > > archive at http://puck.nether.net/pipermail/cisco-nsp/
> > > >
> > >
> > > Hank Nussbacher
> > >
> > >
> > > _______________________________________________
> > > cisco-nsp mailing list  cisco-nsp at puck.nether.net
> > > https://puck.nether.net/mailman/listinfo/cisco-nsp
> > > archive at http://puck.nether.net/pipermail/cisco-nsp/
> > >
> >
>