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

Pete Lumbis alumbis at gmail.com
Tue May 6 19:48:04 UTC 2014


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
>
>


More information about the NANOG mailing list