[c-nsp] Ang: Making SUP720 cope better under BGP load

[Mattias Gyllenvarg]

I can vouch for the asr9k in regards too performance. But the software
still is not as stable as you might want.
On May 2, 2013 9:52 AM, <Gustav.Ulander at steria.se> wrote:

> Hello Simon.
> We are using asr1k for peering purposes and Sup2T in the core. We also
> have some sup 720 as PE routers.
> We find that the ASR1001 is alot faster at establishing our BGP sessions
> than both sup 720 and 2T. I would look into the ASR9001. Seems to be much
> better box than an ASR 1k box when you spec it to be able to push around
> 40G. Often turns out cheaper than ASR1k boxes also.
>
> Gustav Uhlander
> Communication & Infrastructure Engineer
>
> Steria AB
> Kungsbron 13
> Box 169
> SE-101 23 Stockholm
> Sweden
>
> Tel: +46 8 622 42 15
> Fax: +46 8 622 42 23
> Mobile: +46 70 962 71 03
> gustav.ulander at steria.se
> www.steria.se
>
>
> -----cisco-nsp-bounces at puck.nether.net skrev: -----
> Till: cisco-nsp at puck.nether.net
> Från: Simon Lockhart **
> Sänt av: cisco-nsp-bounces at puck.nether.net
> Datum: 2012-12-07 14:29
> Ärende: [c-nsp] Making SUP720 cope better under BGP load
>
> All,
>
> I'm currently using SUP720-3BXL's in my BGP border devices.  Obviously the
> SUP720 is not a particularly fast CPU, so it is pretty slow at bringing up
> a
> lot of BGP sessions.
>
> On one particular box, I've got 250 BGP neighbours - 1 full table transit,
> 2
> IGP to route-reflectors, and the rest are peering sessions at an IXP.
> Recently,
> the IXP did maintenance causing the interface to drop, and it bought the
> box to
> its knees. The "BGP Router" process takes all the available CPU while it
> tries
> to re-establish the BGP sessions. While this is happening, the SUP720
> seems to
> give up processing other stuff in a timely manner - and I see MPLS LDP
> drop,
> OSPF neighbours drop, and then BGP sessions drop due to hold timer expires.
> With all these drops, it causes even more CPU load, and the cycle
> continues.
>
> I've been talking to other SUP720 using ISPs, and it seems that some see
> this
> same effect, and others don't.
>
> Currently running 12.2(33)SXJ3
>
> Are there any tweaks that I can apply to the IOS config to make the SUP720
> cope better in this sort of situation? I'd be happy for the BGP sessions to
> take a lot longer to re-establish, if it didn't kill everything else in the
> process...
>
> And, as a follow-on question, given that the SUP720 is so under-powered for
> BGP, what other options do I have which would cope better? SUP-2T? Or, if
> I need to move away from the 6500, what's good for BGP routing with about
> 20-40G of throughput (i.e. 4-8 * 10GE ports)? How does the ASR9k or ASR1k
> range fair for BGP performance?
>
> Many thanks in advance,
>
> Simon
> _______________________________________________
> 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/
>