[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]
[c-nsp] ASR opinions..
- Subject: [c-nsp] ASR opinions..
- From: wiwi at progon.net (Christian 'wiwi' Wittenhorst)
- Date: Thu, 08 Mar 2012 19:38:47 +0100
- In-reply-to: <CAJAdsD=2fYeesxKihp0EfwSY8kcYcsS4=TqN2AoM5-zVq6Ekmg@mail.gmail.com>
- References: <[email protected]> <[email protected]> <CAOMUSPY+F0ens+7sHDOFMJpJdBiVdVn0t6fYTF7RHGPKaSB_Dw@mail.gmail.com> <[email protected]> <CAP9danc2E3pFzHtcSYfZqisq-GVQjo55WJR7qy-2M+i07mCTQA@mail.gmail.com> <CAJAdsD=2fYeesxKihp0EfwSY8kcYcsS4=TqN2AoM5-zVq6Ekmg@mail.gmail.com>
On 2012-03-08 18:25, PC wrote:
> The low end ASRs are poor boxes for full BGP table internet edge
> applications. They have many other great applications, but the reason they
> are bad here is simply route limits in the FIB.
>
> The asr1001 only supports 512,000 IPV4 routes in the FIB at any given point
> in time, and 128,000 IPV6 routes.
Current ASR1001 do NOT have that limitation:
<http://www.cisco.com/en/US/prod/collateral/routers/ps9343/data_sheet_c78-441072.html>
> Performance
> * 1,000,000 IPv4 or 1,000,000 IPv6 routes
> * BGP RR scalability to 2,000,000 IPv4/IPv6 routes
> (using 4-GB memory) or 9,000,000 IPv4/IPv6
> routes (using 8-GB memory)