RE: Scalability of Netconf

["Sharon Chisholm" <schishol@nortel.com>]

hi

These would be interesting numbers to get. I've heard related (but
opposite?) concerns around being able to get the most out of each
netconf connection to ensure that more complex deployments don't max out
on connections. This might eventually require us to continue the
channelization discussions which was mainly deferred, but I think that
can wait a bit. First step would be to determine if this is really an
issue in practice.

Sharon

-----Original Message-----
From: owner-netconf@ops.ietf.org [mailto:owner-netconf@ops.ietf.org] On
Behalf Of Juergen Schoenwaelder
Sent: Saturday, July 02, 2005 12:27 AM
To: Kenneth V. Crozier; netconf@ops.ietf.org
Subject: Re: Scalability of Netconf


On Sat, Jul 02, 2005 at 06:05:35AM +0200, Juergen Schoenwaelder wrote:
> On Fri, Jul 01, 2005 at 11:13:20AM -0700, Kenneth V. Crozier wrote:
> 
> > What i'm concerned with is how many connections a NM station would 
> > have
> > to maintain, and by this are we raising the bar for storage and 
> > processor requirements of the NM station.
> 
> If I buy a machine for say 1.000 Euros and put Linux or BSD on it. 
> What do you think how many TCP connections I can maintain with such a 
> box?

Actually, I should have said ssh connections. BTW, this is not a 
terrible difficult experiment to do so I might even do this excercise
next week if anyone really cares about numbers.

/js

-- 
Juergen Schoenwaelder		    International University Bremen
<http://www.eecs.iu-bremen.de/>	    P.O. Box 750 561, 28725 Bremen,
Germany

--
to unsubscribe send a message to netconf-request@ops.ietf.org with the
word 'unsubscribe' in a single line as the message text body.
archive: <http://ops.ietf.org/lists/netconf/>


--
to unsubscribe send a message to netconf-request@ops.ietf.org with
the word 'unsubscribe' in a single line as the message text body.
archive: <http://ops.ietf.org/lists/netconf/>