[c-nsp] C65K: Any significant correlation between import filter route-map complexity and BGP Router process utilization?

[Keegan Holley]

No worries... I'll try to use more than one sentence when I post in the
future.  To answer the original poster's question the only way to cut down
on cpu usage for routing updates is to use prefix lists with the shortest
bit masks possible.  They were created especially for this
purpose although the software architecture details escape me at the moment.


2010/9/5 Łukasz Bromirski <lukasz at bromirski.net>

> On 2010-09-05 04:11, Keegan Holley wrote:
> > I understand turbo ACLs.  I was saying that the enhancements only apply
> to
> > packet manipulations not routing protocols.  I'm not sure if it is
> causing
> > the issues that started this thread, but the only way to optimize route
> > filters is to use prefix lists to match the routes.  For example all the
> > items in the link you sent pertain to packet filtering, QOS or natting.
> >  Correct me if I'm wrong but, I don't believe the improvements in ACL
> > processing applied to those used for route filters.
>
> Right, if the ACL is used for route manipulation, CPU has to process it
> and there's no added value in hardware processing even if platform
> supports it. Sorry, I didn't get your point.
>
> --
> "Everything will be okay in the end.  |                 Łukasz Bromirski
>  If it's not okay, it's not the end." |      http://lukasz.bromirski.net
> _______________________________________________
> 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/
>
>
>