[157101] in North American Network Operators' Group
Re: max-prefix and platform tcam limits: they are things
daemon@ATHENA.MIT.EDU (joel jaeggli)
Fri Oct 5 20:36:49 2012
Date: Fri, 05 Oct 2012 17:36:30 -0700
From: joel jaeggli <joelja@bogus.com>
To: jim deleskie <deleskie@gmail.com>
In-Reply-To: <CAJL_ZMM1FYske=QoHf7KzxZMZmc5YMaSDnk8Lo1fSxxds18fTw@mail.gmail.com>
Cc: Nanog <nanog@nanog.org>
Errors-To: nanog-bounces+nanog.discuss=bloom-picayune.mit.edu@nanog.org
On 10/5/12 5:05 PM, jim deleskie wrote:
> I know that I should know better then comment on networks others then
> my own, ( and I know to never comment on my own publicly :) )
>
>
> 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?
it's pretty easy to inadvertently leak a copy of the internet from one
vrf to another and effectively install two copies of the internet routes
in your fib...
There are plently of cases where you might to that or something similar
on purpose, which is all good and
well if you have 2million route fib capacity but less awesome if you
have 512K route capacity linecards at this point. if you get those
routes from a private peer on some non-internet-vrf well that might
imply that your filter policy needs some tuning.
> I won't even get into max-prefix and how we've managed this long with
> someone people still not setting them.
>
>
> -jim
> On Fri, Oct 5, 2012 at 7:31 PM, Anton Kapela <tkapela@gmail.com> wrote:
>> Submitted without comment:
>> http://inside.godaddy.com/inside-story-happened-godaddy-com-sept-10-2012/
>>
>> -Tk
>>
