[c-nsp] 1841 suitable for BGP?
Gert Doering
gert at greenie.muc.de
Sat Sep 2 02:57:55 EDT 2006
Hi,
On Fri, Sep 01, 2006 at 06:28:45PM -0300, Everton da Silva Marques wrote:
> > What you describe is true for process switching, but if
> > you *are* doing process switching, you have much worse
> > problems than the BGP scanner.
>
> I used to assume that the 1841 router was deprived of
> any ASIC-assisted forwarding mechanism (think TCAM-like),
> and thus packet switching would be fully performed by
> software in the main CPU;
This is correct for *all* Cisco devices up to a 7200.
The 7304 has PXF, the 7600 has TCAM based forwarding.
> the performance distinction
> between process switching and CEF switching would lie
> entirely in the software path triggered by the incoming
> packet. That is, only the low priority of processes
> like BGP scanner would prevent those processes from
> routinely disrupting the CEF switching performance.
The whole point of CEF is that it's happening in the incoming-packet-
interrupt.
So there is nothing a process can do to interrupt CEF forwarding.
> I suppose you are saying that either:
> 1. 1841 does have some kind of specialized hardware for
> packet forwarding, presumably programmed from CEF FIB
No.
> 2. the CEF path somehow executes at a higher priority
> than processes like BGP and process-switching
> (huh, is process-switching an actual process?);
> hence CEF-switching performance would be less
> affected by ordinary processes (compared to
> process-swiching)
> ?
Yes. CEF happens when the incoming interface signals an interrupt
"hey, a packet has arrived!".
gert
--
USENET is *not* the non-clickable part of WWW!
//www.muc.de/~gert/
Gert Doering - Munich, Germany gert at greenie.muc.de
fax: +49-89-35655025 gert at net.informatik.tu-muenchen.de
More information about the cisco-nsp
mailing list