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

Ca By cb.list6 at gmail.com
Tue May 6 22:04:45 UTC 2014


On May 6, 2014 12:32 PM, "Darin" <synack at live.com> wrote:
>
> And since those puppies are going to need a reload after adjustment make
sure your not exposed to the component decay issue for cards manufactured
between 2005-2010 or you could have a interesting night.
>
> We've hit that issue on three different 7600 chassis.
>
> Darin
>

You are not the only one, major manufacturing defects...

http://www.cisco.com/go/memory

>
>
> -----Original Message-----
>
> From: NANOG [mailto:nanog-bounces at nanog.org] On Behalf Of Drew Weaver
>
> Sent: Tuesday, May 06, 2014 10:39 AM
>
> To: 'nanog at nanog.org'
>
> Subject: Getting pretty close to default IPv4 route maximum for 6500/7600
> routers.
>
>
>
> 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