At 10:33 PM 11/24/2004, you wrote:

Actually, Livingston/Lucent had one guy who was a contract programmer who developed their BGP implementation in a very short period of time. It had one minor bug which he fixed quickly and there were never any additional updates to it after that. We ran BGP on a PM3 with 3 T1 lines (using the infamous PM-SYNC-T1 card for the 3rd T1) for several months with 3 full feeds back when we had about 55-60k routes and we always had about 20MB free with 32MB in the box. It worked well and was very stable. I don't recall his name, but he was a very smart cookie. He also wrote their OSPF code too iirc. This is what I was told by my inside people at the time anyway. I think there is a lot which can be done to extend the life of 256MB routers with better table/RAM management as is being discussed. Does Cisco have enough incentive from the stick of many unsatisfied customers to do this or is the carrot of lots of NPE-400 and G1 and soon G3 cards (for 7206s anyway) a more powerful motivator? However, if we have to do a wholesale forklift upgrade across all of our core and edge routers, we will be looking very hard at other vendors with arguably better performance and code stability when it comes time to upgrade.

-Robert

Tellurian Networks - The Ultimate Internet Connection http://www.tellurian.com | 888-TELLURIAN | 973-300-9211 "Good will, like a good name, is got by many actions, and lost by one." - Francis Jeffrey