[c-nsp] ASR 1k vs 9k as a non-transit BGP router with full tables?

[Patrick M. Hausen]

Hi,

> Am 03.08.2017 um 23:58 schrieb Łukasz Bromirski <lukasz at bromirski.net>:
> For that kind of scenario, Sup720-10GE can still do it’s job if
> You use Selective Route Download. You don’t need full tables as
> Spotify’s SIR project have shown. You’re even better than Spotify,
> as You’re end station for the traffic, not transit as I understood.
> Just take a look here (and read on):
> https://labs.spotify.com/2016/01/26/sdn-internet-router-part-1/

Great link, thanks!

> Also, try to stick to 15.xS lines. It seems You’re doing quite simple things
> and there’s no real value in staying on 12.2(33) line unless some
> hardware dependencies.

15.xS fails with continuously resetting the BGP process as soon as the
second full feed is activated due to memory allocation failures.
That's why I specifically downgraded our switches at 5am this morning :-/

At the moment 6 peers, 4x full feed, everything running fine.
RP memory at 90% utilization, though. TCAM 78% v4, 39% v6.

> BTW, you can upgrade RAM on 720-10GE to 2GB. This is of course not
> officially supported, but as You’re anyway running on refubrished equipment,
> you don’t care that much. Just remember to upgrade both RP and SP
> memory, as in theory with this Sup you wouldn’t need to care anymore
> as SP is just a stub, but may actually play buffer allocation tricks
> and if there’s disrepancy between RP and SP RAM size, you may
> run into trouble (RP loosing SP, stalling and then rebooting on
> watchdog - it isn’t pretty and for sure - not predictable).

Another great advice - thanks again.
Patrick
-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: signature.asc
Type: application/pgp-signature
Size: 496 bytes
Desc: Message signed with OpenPGP
URL: <https://puck.nether.net/pipermail/cisco-nsp/attachments/20170804/72585e09/attachment-0001.sig>