[nsp] RAM for two unique views?

[Dan Armstrong]

We have been toying around with ways to multi home a box that does NAT to the
Internet inside MPLS-VPNs.  We could run BGP inside each VRF (x >400
customers) Hahahaha!  But seriously, I never thought of using a route server -
that is a really neat idea...



"Stephen J. Wilcox" wrote:

> variation on a theme.. can you achieve the same (similar) result with route
> servers where you ebgp-mhop the customer a different table based on service
> class.. anyone doing any split level service like this ?
>
> Steve
>
> On Tue, 9 Mar 2004, Pete Templin wrote:
>
> > List,
> >
> > If (and this is all hypothetical, just in case the PHB comes up with the
> >   idea) I were to put a full BGP view in the default IPv4 routing table
> > AND a full BGP view in a VRF routing table, what's the minimum likely
> > RAM that would be safe?  In other words, are there any economies of
> > duplication that would aid the memory usage, or am I looking at
> > 384-512MB of memory (i.e. NPE-400, NPE-G1, RSP16) needed to accomplish this?
> >
> > (For the curious, I'm looking at options for two unique routing tables,
> > one with good & fast but expensive bandwidth, the other with cheap YMMV
> > bandwidth.  The idea is to be able to reprovision the customer(s)
> > between the two blends without rehoming them into a different
> > aggregation router, and/or having to procure a separate agg router, etc.
> >   I'm not thrilled about the concept, but I figure I'd better have my
> > ducks in a row before I get caught off-guard.)
> >
> > pt
> > _______________________________________________
> > 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/
> >
>
> _______________________________________________
> 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/