Re: [bmwg] CPU and Memory Performance of Routing Protocols.

"Howard C. Berkowitz" <hcb@gettcomm.com> Thu, 30 October 2003 02:22 UTC

Received: from optimus.ietf.org (ietf.org [132.151.1.19] (may be forged)) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id VAA20795 for <bmwg-archive@lists.ietf.org>; Wed, 29 Oct 2003 21:22:22 -0500 (EST)
Received: from localhost.localdomain ([127.0.0.1] helo=www1.ietf.org) by optimus.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.20) id 1AF2Rk-0000aD-NG; Wed, 29 Oct 2003 21:22:00 -0500
Received: from odin.ietf.org ([132.151.1.176] helo=ietf.org) by optimus.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.20) id 1AF2RM-0000UH-KI for bmwg@optimus.ietf.org; Wed, 29 Oct 2003 21:21:36 -0500
Received: from ietf-mx (ietf-mx.ietf.org [132.151.6.1]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id VAA20787 for <bmwg@ietf.org>; Wed, 29 Oct 2003 21:21:25 -0500 (EST)
Received: from ietf-mx ([132.151.6.1]) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 1AF2RJ-0002nR-00 for bmwg@ietf.org; Wed, 29 Oct 2003 21:21:33 -0500
Received: from rwcrmhc13.comcast.net ([204.127.198.39]) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 1AF2RJ-0002nD-00 for bmwg@ietf.org; Wed, 29 Oct 2003 21:21:33 -0500
Received: from [192.168.0.2] (pcp03918025pcs.arlngt01.va.comcast.net[68.86.209.117]) by comcast.net (rwcrmhc13) with ESMTP id <20031030022103015008g9che>; Thu, 30 Oct 2003 02:21:03 +0000
Mime-Version: 1.0
X-Sender: hcb8@smtp.comcast.net (Unverified)
Message-Id: <p0510032ebbc624f89527@[192.168.0.2]>
In-Reply-To: <0A11633F61BD9F40B43ABCC694004F93021F6003@zsc3c026.us.nortel.com>
References: <0A11633F61BD9F40B43ABCC694004F93021F6003@zsc3c026.us.nortel.com>
Date: Wed, 29 Oct 2003 21:20:59 -0500
To: bmwg@ietf.org
From: "Howard C. Berkowitz" <hcb@gettcomm.com>
Subject: Re: [bmwg] CPU and Memory Performance of Routing Protocols.
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" ; format="flowed"
Sender: bmwg-admin@ietf.org
Errors-To: bmwg-admin@ietf.org
X-BeenThere: bmwg@ietf.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.0.12
Precedence: bulk
List-Unsubscribe: <https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/bmwg>, <mailto:bmwg-request@ietf.org?subject=unsubscribe>
List-Id: Benchmarking Methodology Working Group <bmwg.ietf.org>
List-Post: <mailto:bmwg@ietf.org>
List-Help: <mailto:bmwg-request@ietf.org?subject=help>
List-Subscribe: <https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/bmwg>, <mailto:bmwg-request@ietf.org?subject=subscribe>

At 6:31 AM -0800 10/29/03, Hesham Elbakoury wrote:
>    Are there any RFCs that describe the factors that affect the CPU 
>and memory performance
>    of routing protocols and typical memory and CPU usage of these 
>protocols under diffent
>    networking configurations.
>
>    Hesham

There is methodology for describing external performance of routing 
protocols by "black box" benchmarking, and some work on "white box" 
assuming probes into the routing code.  It's fair to say, however, 
that the IETF would not get involved in evaluation memory and CPU, 
since those are so highly dependent on vendor-specific router design.

Let me put it this way, since I used to be a router developer at 
Nortel -- there is no way, other than in the strange minds [1] of 
salesdroids, to make realistic comparisons of usage between a Cisco 
IOS router, a Bay RS router, the things in Ottawa that never got out 
of the lab, a Passport running routing protocols, a Juniper running 
JunOS, etc.  You can do benchmarks, but the memory and CPU is too 
specific for any RFC.


[1] I recognize I _am_ making an assumption here about the existence 
of certain substances between the ears of salesdroids.

_______________________________________________
bmwg mailing list
bmwg@ietf.org
https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/bmwg