All Archives / aussie-isp / 2005-10
<<< Date >>>
Permanent Link
Date: Sun, 2 Oct 2005 12:59:13 +1000
From: Andrew Fort
To: skeeve
Cc: Aussie Isp
Message-Id: <403FE949-8F73-4893-B68A-A3720E57036D@choqolat.org>
In-Reply-To: <200509261351.j8QDpqe20633@mx1.mailsecurity.net.au>
References: <200509261351.j8QDpqe20633@mx1.mailsecurity.net.au>
Subject: Re: [Oz-ISP] Zebra for BGP
No followups recorded.


On 26/09/2005, at 11:51 PM, Skeeve Stevens wrote:

> I'm wondering if the Zebra functionality is up to the task.  It  
> will need to
> handle 6 upstreams with at least 4 of them being up to 200mb in  
> size...
> Throughput expected to reach 600mb at times (but possibly more).  
> The Link
> Controller is apparently rated to handle 2GB of throughput, though  
> I am not
> sure how it accomplishes this.

in terms of zebra's scalability to handle large numbers of peers, my  
understanding is that this has been largely resolved, but that route-
views originally had issues of scale with their zebra route-server.  
for example:

$ telnet route-views2.oregon-ix.net
Trying 198.32.162.102...
Connected to route-views2.oregon-ix.net.
Escape character is '^]'.

Hello, this is zebra (version 0.94).
Copyright 1996-2002 Kunihiro Ishiguro.

route-views2.routeviews.org> show ip bgp sum
BGP router identifier 128.223.60.102, local AS number 6447
939059 BGP AS-PATH entries
10475 BGP community entries

Neighbor        V    AS MsgRcvd MsgSent   TblVer  InQ OutQ Up/Down  
State/PfxRcd
154.11.11.113   4   852  222472   47716        0    0    0 02w5d18h    
168324
154.11.98.225   4   852  225484   48620        0    0    0 01w6d17h    
168443
157.130.10.233  4   701 4634017  133760        0    0    0 02w5d18h    
167023
64.5.1.2        4 14107 8473307  140341        0    0    0 05w1d06h    
167543
[etc for many lines]

Total number of neighbors 41
--

sounds like it should handle 6 peers.

> The scenario is actually 2 * F5 BigIP Link Controllers in Active/
> Active
> mode... But finding that Zebra was the choice of BGP has stalled me
> momentarily enough to investigate whether that the Zebra
> functionality/capabilities can handle the above sort of load.
>
> On the assumption that we can't upgrade from Zebra to Quagga on the  
> LC1000,
> what is the current state of Zebra - vulnerabilities, etc etc.
>
> Maybe it would be better to go a Cisco.

-andrew

----
email "unsubscribe aussie-isp" to m a j o r d o m o @ a u s s i e . n e t to be removed.

<<< Date >>>
This page was automatically generated, based on a complete record of postings made to the nominated list. Copyright issues, blame or gratitude belongs to the entity that wrote the content.