[c-nsp] bgp scalability C7600

[james list]

Hi gert
Good info.

>From customer requirements and  pricing point of view the idea is to
replace with a nexus.

Regards
Il 06/feb/2015 19:45 "Gert Doering" <gert at greenie.muc.de> ha scritto:

> Hi,
>
> On Fri, Feb 06, 2015 at 03:16:26PM +0100, james list wrote:
> > do anybody have numbers in terms of BGP sessions scalability oin C7600
> > SUP-720 ?
>
> "not that great"...
>
> Ours at DE-CIX has a handful of iBGP sessions and about 150 eBGP sessions
> to IXP participants, and if that interface flaps, it will hickup for
> about *1 hour* until everything is stable again.
>
> Effectively it depends on
>
>  - number of sessions
>  - number of prefixes on each session ("10 each" or "50.000")
>  - how complicated your inbound and outbout policy is
>     (our policy is slightly too complicated, with as-path matches which
>      are not exactly performance efficient)
>  - whether peers can be grouped into update-groups (= same export policy)
>  - keepalive timers your peers have configured
>     (the main issue is "CPU busy -> keepalives not answered in time ->
>      session bouncing -> more CPU busy", which is made worse by short
>      keepalive timers)
>
> We're not deploying Sup720s for anything with "lots of BGP" anymore, and
> the box in question will be replaced with an ASR9001 any day now, which
> is just laughing its NPUs off on that BGP load... ("BGP convergence in 30
> seconds.  done.  anything more interesting to do?  Any slow peer I could
> nuke with outgoing updates sent over too fast for it?").
>
> 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
>