[c-nsp] BGP Routing Failover for multiple classes of customers

[Ryan O'Connell]

-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
Hash: SHA1
 
On 07/09/2005 13:50, Jon Lewis wrote:

| On Wed, 7 Sep 2005, Gert Doering wrote:
|
|> Will a Sup720/3B (non XL) handle that?  A main routing table and
|> 2-3 VRFs with 160.000 routes each?
|
|
| cio claims for the 720s and MPLS: WS-SUP720        WS-SUP720-3B
| WS-SUP720-3BXL no            700vrfs, 350 routes/vrf    1024vrfs, 700
| routes/vrf
|
| So then the question is, are your vrfs really limited to those
| numbers of routes, or are you limited to a vrfs*routes product, and
| can have some really big (like full internet routes) vrf routing
| tables if you only use a few vrfs?


There's space for 1M roting table entries on the -3BXL and 256k on the
- -3B - hence the 700*350 limit on the -3B. Not sure why they say the
- -3BXL can only do 1024*700, should be 1024*1024 so there must be some
other limit too.

(I believe it's TCAM that's the limiting factor - IPv6 entries take up
twice as much space as IPv4 and I've heard that uRPF halves the number
of available entries but I don't know that for sure.)

- --
~         Ryan O'Connell - CCIE #8174
<ryan at complicity.co.uk> - http://www.complicity.co.uk

I'm not losing my mind, no I'm not changing my lines,
I'm just learning new things with the passage of time
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
Version: GnuPG v1.2.3 (MingW32)
Comment: Using GnuPG with Thunderbird - http://enigmail.mozdev.org
 
iD8DBQFDHueXoaLhvISWLh0RAvbdAKDGBpGcGwoRe9LazJhW41N9LEdqPQCbBV15
jPyGOtWn0R3Y1X727U11ZXE=
=skia
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----