[157098] in North American Network Operators' Group
Re: max-prefix and platform tcam limits: they are things
daemon@ATHENA.MIT.EDU (jim deleskie)
Fri Oct 5 20:21:38 2012
In-Reply-To: <13847.1349482664@turing-police.cc.vt.edu>
Date: Fri, 5 Oct 2012 21:21:27 -0300
From: jim deleskie <deleskie@gmail.com>
To: Valdis.Kletnieks@vt.edu
Cc: Nanog <nanog@nanog.org>
Errors-To: nanog-bounces+nanog.discuss=bloom-picayune.mit.edu@nanog.org
Yes that math would work, but if your device can't handle 1x Internet
routing and your running without some serious max-prefix/filters it
says even more about your IP eng team then I'd be willing to comment
on.
-jim
On Fri, Oct 5, 2012 at 9:17 PM, <Valdis.Kletnieks@vt.edu> wrote:
> 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....
