Fw: [c-nsp] A Stable BRAS IOS? + performance

[Gyebnár Krisztián]

Hi,

 We running on 12.3.10a on our NPE-G1 without any problem, the performance:
 ~3000 users, no fragmantation(fully 1552 byte MTU path from the LAC to LNS)
250Mbit/sec bidirectional taraffic and the cpu about 55-60%, also only L2TP
and PPP session termination is going on.

 Important: check the keepalive time because the default is 10 seconds :-(,
this cause many overhead on the Network, CPU...
 we set up this to 30s and the performance is much better :-)

Krisztián

> ----- Original Message ----- 
> From: "Osama I. Dosary" <oid at saudi.net.sa>
> To: <cisco-nsp at puck.nether.net>
> Sent: Monday, December 06, 2004 7:50 AM
> Subject: Re: [c-nsp] A Stable BRAS IOS? + performance
>
>
>> Robert E.Seastrom wrote:
>>
>>>"Osama I. Dosary" <oid at saudi.net.sa> writes:
>>>
>>>
>>>>Hello,
>>>>
>>>>We are using Cisco routers (NPE-G1) as a NAS and LNS. No PVCs are
>>>>terminated on these routers, only L2TP and PPP session termination is
>>>>going on.
>>>>
>>>>We have having difficulting finding a stable IOS to run on these
>>>>routers.
>>>>
>>>>Does anyone know of a good stable IOS they have been using for the
>>>>same/similar purpose, and recommend?
>>>>
>>>
>>>I've been using c7200-js-mz.123-8.T4.bin for about six weeks now as an
>>>LNS; while it's not GD it runs quite nicely on an NPE300 and I believe
>>>will run on your G1 as well.  Our load peaks at a little over 1600
>>>simultaneous users, 55% CPU, 50 Mbit aggregate (up + down) traffic
>>>through router (your mileage will obviously vary since you have a much
>>>more studly CPU).  CPU load is slightly inflated because of
>>>outstanding issues with a few hosts that are moving oversized L2TP
>>>packets that get fragmented and need reassembly to pop the PPPoE frame
>>>(fragment reassembly is most assuredly *not* in the fast switching
>>>path).
>>>
>>>
>> On our NPE-G1 (for Dialup) load peaks at ~3000 users, 110Mbps (up+down)
>> traffic and CPU util is about 80%. I feel like we are doing something
>> wrong, according to Cisco docs, this router should be able to handle tons
>> more.
>>
>> Even when we used to run NPE-300s for dialup, it could not handle more
>> than 900 sessions, with CPU over 90%. What could be the reason?
>> We used various IOS versions, without much difference in performance. We
>> noticed that when the B-train version is used we save about 5-10% on CPU
>> cycles. But it is still far from the router specifications.
>>
>> Could this be a matter of fragmentation of the L2TP packets that could be
>> causing bad performance.
>> Any ideas?
>>
>>
>> -Osama
>>
>>
>>
>> _______________________________________________
>> 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/
>>
>