[c-nsp] 2821 for BGP?

[Mark Zipp]

Hi,

Can't comment on the throughput side of a 2800, however we've been
using Cisco 871/877s for our low end customers who want a similar sort
of setup. They've got 400Mhz PowerPC processors in them and by default
128MB of RAM - I'm sure Internet backbone routers were less powerful
in CPU / RAM terms in the late 90s.

Here's some BGP status info for an 871 with around 3000 routes in it,
which includes routes with a number of communities and some paths with
more than one AS in them :

--
Router#show ip bgp summary
BGP router identifier 1.1.1.1, local AS number 64512
BGP table version is 6601, main routing table version 6601
3124 network entries using 365508 bytes of memory
3124 path entries using 149952 bytes of memory
264/263 BGP path/bestpath attribute entries using 30624 bytes of memory
147 BGP AS-PATH entries using 4296 bytes of memory
97 BGP community entries using 3816 bytes of memory
0 BGP route-map cache entries using 0 bytes of memory
0 BGP filter-list cache entries using 0 bytes of memory
BGP using 554196 total bytes of memory
BGP activity 13183/10059 prefixes, 14069/10945 paths, scan interval 60 secs

Neighbor        V    AS MsgRcvd MsgSent   TblVer  InQ OutQ Up/Down  State/PfxRcd
2.2.2.2  4  64513    3083    3015     6601    0    0 03:08:38     3122
Router#
--

As you can see from the total bytes memory, 128MB is overkill !

I did for fun dump a full Internet route table into it, with CEF off,
just to see how far it got before it ran our of ram - 143 000 or so
routes was pretty impressive :-)

So based on that I'd be pretty confident of the 2800 as a BGP router
receiving a couple of weighted defaults, assuming it can do the
throughput you want. The 871's might even do the job, although I
haven't run HSRP on them, however I doubt that would be a problem.

HTH,
Mark.



On 16/01/07, Brian Desmond <brian at briandesmond.com> wrote:
> I have 2821s with a full table and partial routes from ISPs in them -
> almost 300K routes. They're fine. They get CPU bound if you try to
> provide more than one full view from them I've found.
>
> Thanks,
> Brian Desmond
> brian at briandesmond.com
>
> c - 312.731.3132
>
>
> > -----Original Message-----
> > From: cisco-nsp-bounces at puck.nether.net [mailto:cisco-nsp-
> > bounces at puck.nether.net] On Behalf Of Justin M. Streiner
> > Sent: Monday, January 15, 2007 3:16 PM
> > To: cisco-nsp at puck.nether.net
> > Subject: Re: [c-nsp] 2821 for BGP?
> >
> > On Mon, 15 Jan 2007, miguel wrote:
> >
> > > Hi all...
> > >
> > >    I know that the 38xx is the default router recommended for BGP
> > > applications. However, I was wondering if any of you have been
> > working
> > > with the 2821 (or 2811) with BGP. I'm worry about CPU usage.
> > > So this is the general config.
> >
> > If you plan on doing just an active/standby setup with your upstream
> > providers, you only need to take a default route via BGP from each of
> > them.  I have (almost) exactly this configuration running at a number
> > of
> > client sites on a variety of routers.  A 2801 will handle this with no
> > problems.
> >
> > Rather than having I'm assuming static default routes internally, run
> > IBGP
> > between your two EBGP speaking routers.  Static routes can get messy.
> >
> > Since you're only talking about a small handful of BGP routes, a small
> > router like a 2800 series should work just fine.  Would I try to cram
> a
> > full Internet routing table into a 2800?  No.
> >
> > jms
> >
> > >
> > > link1                            link2
> > > |                                        |
> > > |                                        |
> > > R1 ----(HSRP)-----------R2
> > > |                                        |
> > > -------------LAN---------
> > >
> > >
> > > Each router will have a BGP default route to link 1, and an
> > alternative
> > > route to link 2.
> > > The maximum throughput will be 5-6Mbps
> > >
> > > Now, has anybody work with something like this (or similar) with
> this
> > > type of routers?
> > >
> > > PS: I'm not worry about memory, cos' I can upgrade it to 512.
> > >
> > >
> > > _______________________________________________
> > > 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/
>
> _______________________________________________
> 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/
>