nanog mailing list archives
Re: BGP peering strategies for smaller routers
From: Blake Hudson <blake () ispn net>
Date: Tue, 3 May 2016 20:57:07 -0500
I turned up a full ip4 feed on an RP1 today. Took approximately 5 minutes to fill the rib and probably another 5 minutes to push to the fib. The CLI responsiveness was noticeably slowed during this process, but the router didn't drop traffic. I'm guessing a second feed would involve fewer rib and fib changes and would converge faster.
On May 3, 2016, at 6:02 PM, Carlos Alcantar <carlos () race com> wrote: I know this thread has been primarily about memory to hold the routing tables, but how well does it do with the BGP convergence time?? which could be the other killer with multiple full route tables.
Current thread:
- Re: BGP peering strategies for smaller routers, (continued)
- Re: BGP peering strategies for smaller routers William Herrin (May 03)
- Re: BGP peering strategies for smaller routers Nick Hilliard (May 03)
- Re: BGP peering strategies for smaller routers Łukasz Bromirski (May 03)
- Re: BGP peering strategies for smaller routers William Herrin (May 03)
- Re: BGP peering strategies for smaller routers Nick Hilliard (May 03)
- Re: BGP peering strategies for smaller routers William Herrin (May 03)
- RE: BGP peering strategies for smaller routers Chuck Church (May 04)
- Re: BGP peering strategies for smaller routers Blake Hudson (May 04)
- Re: BGP peering strategies for smaller routers Blake Hudson (May 03)
- Re: BGP peering strategies for smaller routers Carlos Alcantar (May 03)
- Re: BGP peering strategies for smaller routers Blake Hudson (May 03)
- Re: BGP peering strategies for smaller routers Łukasz Bromirski (May 03)
- SV: BGP peering strategies for smaller routers Gustav Ulander (May 03)