[157118] in North American Network Operators' Group
Re: max-prefix and platform tcam limits: they are things
daemon@ATHENA.MIT.EDU (Hank Nussbacher)
Sat Oct 6 16:03:22 2012
Date: Sat, 6 Oct 2012 22:02:35 +0200 (IST)
From: Hank Nussbacher <hank@efes.iucc.ac.il>
To: jim deleskie <deleskie@gmail.com>
In-Reply-To: <CAJL_ZMP=Q0z3zaEuebk-_T9YhVNG_ouWDm+gf14sbprZQaJCiw@mail.gmail.com>
Cc: Nanog <nanog@nanog.org>
Errors-To: nanog-bounces+nanog.discuss=bloom-picayune.mit.edu@nanog.org
On Fri, 5 Oct 2012, jim deleskie wrote:
Just ask yourself how many times you have seen a Godaddy IP/NOC person
post anything to NANOG or to any other technical forum?
-Hank
> 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....
>
