[c-nsp] Cisco 7301 running at 99% CPU doing iBGP update

[Rodney Dunn]

We do have scalability test that run. But like any
other scalability test it always "depends".

I just glanced at the G1 test results with 1Gig of memory
and if I'm reading the results right it's on the neighborhood
of 900,000 routes with 1 path and would keep the free memory
above 16M.

For 5 paths it's around 700,000 routes with 16M of memory required
to be left free.

For # of peers vs. number of routes the graph seems to show
for the 200k routes it can do aroudn 1900 peers. Now I haven't
had time to go figure out all the test plan and how it was done
and what configuration etc...

These are just rough data points from the test.


Rodney

On Wed, Jun 28, 2006 at 09:44:34AM +0700, a. Rahman Isnaini r. Sutan wrote:
> Just currious,
> Is there any research had (being) held in cisco for this let say 7206 VXR 
> NPE-G1 (700 MHz)
> for how many (maximum/recommended) number of BGP with full routing table 
> peers or IBGP with restricted prefix peers ?
> 
> -- a.RI.r.sutan
> 
> 
> 
> ----- Original Message ----- 
> From: "Bruce Pinsky" <bep at whack.org>
> To: "jamie baddeley" <jamie.baddeley at fx.net.nz>
> Cc: <cisco-nsp at puck.nether.net>
> Sent: Wednesday, June 28, 2006 3:11 AM
> Subject: Re: [c-nsp] Cisco 7301 running at 99% CPU doing iBGP update
> 
> 
> : -----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
> : Hash: SHA1
> :
> : jamie baddeley wrote:
> : > On Tue, 2006-06-27 at 11:51 -0700, Bruce Pinsky wrote:
> : >> -----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
> : >> Hash: SHA1
> : >>
> : >> Rodney Dunn wrote:
> : >>> Wonder if he's getting recursive next hops.
> : >>>
> : >>> Make sure all your iBGP peers are next hop self.
> : >
> : > Thanks for the thoughts guys.
> : >
> : > Yep, got that as standard in IBGP peer group. And the iBGP peer is
> : > learning things appropriately (if not somewhat slowly (the update ended
> : > up taking an hour)) - Next hop is set to the iBGP peer you learn it from
> : > etc.
> : >
> : > I already had MTU hardset to 9000 on both interfaces. Right now the link
> : > between the two routers is a 2 metre piece of ethernet cable running at
> : > 1 gig. No errors being reported. I'll change down to something like 1500
> : > MTU to see if that makes a difference and turn damned autoneg off (even
> : > if we do have no errors)
> : >
> : > About the only other thing I should point out is that the International
> : > Feed is coming via EBGP multihop, and I'm using OSPF to stand up the
> : > loopbacks in the IGP. But I'd be amazed if they had anything to do with
> : > it.
> : >
> :
> : You have the MTU set to 9K, but if you don't configure path MTU discovery,
> : it's still a 576 MSS in TCP.  Check out the MSS in your TCP sessions via a
> : show command to be sure.  With that small an MSS, it would be easy for the
> : transmitting interface to overrun the receiver on the other end.  Are sure
> : that you aren't getting drops on the receiving side?
> :
> : - --
> : =========
> : bep
> :
> : -----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
> : Version: GnuPG v1.4.2.2 (MingW32)
> : Comment: Using GnuPG with Mozilla - http://enigmail.mozdev.org
> :
> : iD8DBQFEoZEKE1XcgMgrtyYRAteUAJ4xi7PUb2GuxZbfg29wkAo5AShwggCglspY
> : pgMm+BV3vWsAouhASII7Si8=
> : =wAJn
> : -----END PGP SIGNATURE-----
> : _______________________________________________
> : 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/