Re: bandwidth for bkbits.net (good news)

Ricky Beam
2003-09-05T16:46:56Z

On 5 Sep 2003, Henning Schmiedehausen wrote:
>225kpps * 64 Bytes (minimum packet len) = 13,7 MBytes / sec
>
>100 MBit / 8 bit = 12,5 MBytes / sec
>
>So, IMHO even with a small packet saturated 100 MBit link you won't
>reach 225kpps. AFAIK this was Ciscos intention to publish this number.
>It basically says "you will have filled your link before you fill our
>router".

64B is the minimum ETHERNET frame size. That isn't true for PPP, HDLC,
Frame relay, ATM, etc.

>I'm pretty sure that your 37xx won't do any routing updates anymore at
>this point. And if you do _anything_ that forces the packets down the
>slow path from the routing engine, you're toast anyway.

Sure it can. Yeah, it'll be slow_er_, but not stopped. CEF/PXF doesn't
require much CPU to switch a packet.

At process switching, the router is rated to a few K pps. Process switching
SUCKS.

I've seen a 7206/200 _attempt_ to move 150kpps @ 64B each. (misbehaving
software and a misconfigured firewall...) The router was chuggin' right
along -- discarding UDP traffic like a mad man. From the console, it was
working fine. *grin* It's rather hard for telnet to compete (and even
harder for ssh.)

All those machines are behind a 7401 now. And it doesn't even blink at
such things. (That thing's worth every penny we paid for it.)

--Ricky