[157097] in North American Network Operators' Group
Re: max-prefix and platform tcam limits: they are things
daemon@ATHENA.MIT.EDU (Valdis.Kletnieks@vt.edu)
Fri Oct 5 20:18:55 2012
To: jim deleskie <deleskie@gmail.com>
In-Reply-To: Your message of "Fri, 05 Oct 2012 21:05:07 -0300."
<CAJL_ZMM1FYske=QoHf7KzxZMZmc5YMaSDnk8Lo1fSxxds18fTw@mail.gmail.com>
From: Valdis.Kletnieks@vt.edu
Date: Fri, 05 Oct 2012 20:17:44 -0400
Cc: Nanog <nanog@nanog.org>
Errors-To: nanog-bounces+nanog.discuss=bloom-picayune.mit.edu@nanog.org
--==_Exmh_1349482664_2257P
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
On Fri, 05 Oct 2012 21:05:07 -0300, jim deleskie said:
> But here goes, 210x the size of normal really? 210% I'd have a hard
> time believing. Did anyone else anywhere see a route leak equal to
> larger then the entire Internet that day, anywhere else that could of
> caused this?
If the device was only expecting 2K or so internal routes, getting hit with
the 440K routes in the DFZ would be 210x....
--==_Exmh_1349482664_2257P
Content-Type: application/pgp-signature
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
Version: GnuPG v1.4.12 (GNU/Linux)
Comment: Exmh version 2.5 07/13/2001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=IHcd
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----
--==_Exmh_1349482664_2257P--
