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

Randy Epstein nanog at hostleasing.net
Tue Jun 10 07:07:01 UTC 2014


On the RSP720-10GE at least, it seems that IPv4 and MPLS are not shared.
Am I correct or am I missing something?

FIB TCAM maximum routes :
=======================
Current :-
-------
 IPv4                - 768k
 MPLS                - 64k
 IPv6 + IP Multicast - 96k (default)

Randy


On 6/9/14, 3:27 PM, "John van Oppen" <jvanoppen at spectrumnet.us> wrote:

>It is generally much better to do the following:
>
>mls cef maximum-routes ipv6 90
>mls cef maximum-routes ip-multicast 1
>
>This will leave v4 and mpls in one big pool, puts v6 to something useful
>for quite a while and steals all of the multicast space which is not
>really used on most deployments.
>
>
>This gives us the following (which is pretty great for IP backbone
>purposes in dual stack):
>
>#show mls cef maximum-routes
>FIB TCAM maximum routes :
>=======================
>Current :-
>-------
> IPv4 + MPLS         - 832k (default)
> IPv6                - 90k
> IP multicast        - 1k
>
>
>John
>
>
>-----Original Message-----
>From: NANOG [mailto:nanog-bounces at nanog.org] On Behalf Of Jon Lewis
>Sent: Monday, June 09, 2014 12:10 PM
>To: Pete Lumbis
>Cc: nanog at nanog.org
>Subject: Re: Getting pretty close to default IPv4 route maximum for
>6500/7600routers.
>
>Why, in your example, do you bias the split so heavily toward IPv4 that
>the router won't be able to handle a current full v6 table?  I've been
>using
>
>mls cef maximum-routes ip 768
>
>which is probably still a little too liberal for IPv6
>
>FIB TCAM maximum routes :
>=======================
>Current :-
>-------
>  IPv4                - 768k
>  MPLS                - 16k (default)
>  IPv6 + IP Multicast - 120k (default)
>
>given that a full v6 table is around 17k routes today.
>
>A more important question though is how many 6500/7600 routers will fully
>survive the reload required to affect this change?  I've lost a blade
>(presumably to the bad memory issue) each time I've rebooted a 6500 to
>apply this.
>
>On Mon, 9 Jun 2014, Pete Lumbis wrote:
>
>> 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-serie
>> s-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-agg
>>> regation-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: ÿÿ5/ÿÿ6/ÿÿ2014 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
>>>>
>>>>
>>>
>>
>
>----------------------------------------------------------------------
>  Jon Lewis, MCP :)           |  I route
>                              |  therefore you are _________
>http://www.lewis.org/~jlewis/pgp for PGP public key_________





More information about the NANOG mailing list