Getting pretty close to default IPv4 route maximum for 6500/7600routers.

Mon Jun 9 18:30:48 UTC 2014

The doc on how to adjust the 6500/7600 TCAM space was just published.

http://www.cisco.com/c/en/us/support/docs/switches/catalyst-6500-series-switches/117712-problemsolution-cat6500-00.html

On Tue, May 6, 2014 at 3:48 PM, Pete Lumbis <alumbis at gmail.com> wrote:

> There is currently a doc for the ASR9k. We're working on getting on for
> 6500 as well.
>
>
> http://www.cisco.com/c/en/us/support/docs/routers/asr-9000-series-aggregation-services-routers/116999-problem-line-card-00.html
>
>
>
>
> On Tue, May 6, 2014 at 1:34 PM, <bedard.phil at gmail.com> wrote:
>
>> I would like to see Cisco send something out...
>>
>> -----Original Message-----
>> From: "Drew Weaver" <drew.weaver at thenap.com>
>> Sent: ‎5/‎6/‎2014 11:42 AM
>> To: "'nanog at nanog.org'" <nanog at nanog.org>
>> Subject: Getting pretty close to default IPv4 route maximum for
>> 6500/7600routers.
>>
>> Hi all,
>>
>> I am wondering if maybe we should make some kind of concerted effort to
>> remind folks about the IPv4 routing table inching closer and closer to the
>> 512K route mark.
>>
>> We are at about 94/95% right now of 512K.
>>
>> For most of us, the 512K route mark is arbitrary but for a lot of folks
>> who may still be running 6500/7600 or other routers which are by default
>> configured to crash and burn after 512K routes; it may be a valuable public
>> service.
>>
>> Even if you don't have this scenario in your network today; chances are
>> you connect to someone who connects to someone who connects to someone
>> (etc...) that does.
>>
>> In case anyone wants to check on a 6500, you can run:  show platform
>> hardware capacity pfc and then look under L3 Forwarding Resources.
>>
>> Just something to think about before it becomes a story the community
>> talks about for the next decade.
>>
>> -Drew
>>
>>
>