cisco 7206VXR NPE 400 maximum traffic throughput

[Ana Maria Martins Henriques]

I need to know what is the maximum throughput for this equipment, with  tow BGP peers configuration.

[Masoud Pourshabanian]

Hello,

"Performance of up to 400 kpps in CEF switching" Average 2G based on packet size. But it might be less because of bus limitaion

Please check the links below.

http://www.cisco.com/c/en/us/products/collateral/routers/7200-series-routers/product_data_sheet09186a00800ae715.html

https://supportforums.cisco.com/discussion/9467121/max-throughput-npe-400

As for two peers, it depends on whether you are recieving full internet routing or just two default routes. If you are receiving two default routes, you do not to be concern.

Masoud

[Ana Maria Martins Henriques]

I recive full routing - 632 network entries.

[Masoud Pourshabanian]

Hello,

I do not recommend using this router with two peers. I think you even would have problem with one peer. The problem is not throughput. The problem is memory. 7206 with NPE 400 supports maximum 512M memory which is not enough for storing full internet routes.

Are you using it now or you want to replace your current router with 7206? ASR routers are recommended for BGP peering since they have enough memory to store full routes.

Masoud

[Ana Maria Martins Henriques]

I am using it now with ETH WAN acess of 70M. But it need wan upgrade and i like to know the maximum safe upgrade.

[Masoud Pourshabanian]

I do not think that you will have any problem in terms throughput from 70M to higher bandwidth. ( I hope you are increasing 10 times)

Could you please share the output of "show processes memory | include BGP" and show IP BGP summary.

Masoud

[Ana Maria Martins Henriques]

There is the output i replaced the IP address by X.X.X.X

#show processes memory | include BGP
174 0 53703596 39098060 238028 0 0 BGP Router
178 0 209116 7640 6852 113724 4160 BGP I/O
179 0 5668 0 15520 0 0 BGP Scanner

#show IP BGP summary

BGP router identifier X.X.X.X, local AS number 64714
BGP table version is 77089, main routing table version 77089
632 network entries using 63832 bytes of memory
1833 path entries using 87984 bytes of memory
45 BGP path attribute entries using 2700 bytes of memory
12 BGP AS-PATH entries using 288 bytes of memory
0 BGP route-map cache entries using 0 bytes of memory
0 BGP filter-list cache entries using 0 bytes of memory
BGP using 154804 total bytes of memory
1210 received paths for inbound soft reconfiguration
BGP activity 91185/90545 prefixes, 538957/537115 paths, scan interval 60 secs

Neighbor V AS MsgRcvd MsgSent TblVer InQ OutQ Up/Down State/PfxRcd
X.X.X.X 4 64714 7305554 7296616 77089 0 0 1y43w 0
X.X.X.X 4 65520 7921313 7884071 77089 0 0 10w6d 588

It's safe to upgrade the bandwidth to the maximum of 200 Mbps?

[Masoud Pourshabanian]

632 network entries using 63832 bytes of memory
1833 path entries using 87984 bytes of memory
45 BGP path attribute entries using 2700 bytes of memory
12 BGP AS-PATH entries using 288 bytes of memory

You are not receving full internet routes. It is the reason you do not have any problelm.

200 Mbps is in a safe side for your router if you do not have any IPSEC configured.

You can also check show ip route summary to check the number of BGP route inside the routing table.

Masoud

[Masoud Pourshabanian]

Adding to my previous commend.

Not receieving full internet routes is not an issue if you are an end user as long as you receive default routes from both peers.

Based on my experience, At least 2G memory is needed to support full internet routes from two peers. More memory might be needed if you configure other BGP features.

In your case, You would not have any problem if you increase your bandwidth to 200M in terms of traffic throughput. Just make sure your link capacity allows you to increase the required bandwidth.

Hope it helps,

Masoud

[Joseph W. Doherty]

Disclaimer

The Author of this posting offers the information contained within this posting without consideration and with the reader's understanding that there's no implied or expressed suitability or fitness for any purpose. Information provided is for informational purposes only and should not be construed as rendering professional advice of any kind. Usage of this posting's information is solely at reader's own risk.

Liability Disclaimer

In no event shall Author be liable for any damages whatsoever (including, without limitation, damages for loss of use, data or profit) arising out of the use or inability to use the posting's information even if Author has been advised of the possibility of such damage.

Posting

Besides the memory issue, cannot say for sure for a NPE-400, but years ago I had a 3660 that struggled a bit with two full BGP route tables, due to CPU consumption for the BGP scanner process.  Internet BGP tables has since grown.  [edit - the NPE-400 is about 4x faster than a 3660, but unclear whether that's enough with current full BGP tables.)

Assuming you really want ot use a NPE-400, you might consider do you really need full Internet BGP tables?

[Masoud Pourshabanian]

Adding to my previous comment.

http://www.cisco.com/c/en/us/products/collateral/routers/7200-series-routers/data_sheet_c78_339749.html

Take a look at Table 3. Chassis. It says around 1.2G with NPE-400

Masoud