Path: utzoo!utgpu!jarvis.csri.toronto.edu!mailrus!cornell!uw-beaver!mit-eddie!bu-cs!encore!xylogics!loverso From: loverso@Xylogics.COM (John Robert LoVerso) Newsgroups: comp.sys.encore Subject: Re: Annexes and Routing Tables. Message-ID: <342@xenna.Xylogics.COM> Date: 9 Feb 89 23:18:51 GMT References: Reply-To: loverso@xenna.UUCP (John Robert LoVerso) Organization: Xylogics, Inc., Burlington MA Lines: 25 In an article in comp.sys.encore, Tom Holodnik writes: > We seem to be running into an interesting problem here with Annexes and > large routing tables published by RIP. Recently, we allowed the NSFnet > routes to be published onto our campus backbone. The routing tables contain > approximately 312 routes, taking up about as many mbufs in memory on the > Annex. You're correct. When an Annex boots, it allocates a static pool of mbufs, currently 600 mbufs per 1Mb, where each Annex mbuf is 256 bytes (double that of BSD). The number of mbufs is never grown or shrunk. For an Annex-I, this means you will be tight on mbufs if a local gateway is RIP'ing routes equivalent in number to the Internet routing tables. In Annex R4.1, you can disable the Annex RIP-listener (its routed process) and instead rely upon a default route to a local gateway that will issue ICMP redirects as needed. Its possible that there'll be a new per-annex EEPROM parameter for configuring the number of mbufs allocated at boot time, but thats not definite yet. R4.1 is still in beta test, and will be available in a few weeks. -- John Robert LoVerso, Annex Software Engineer Xylogics, Inc. [formerly with Encore Computer Corp] encore!xylogics!loverso, loverso@Encore.COM