[171571] in North American Network Operators' Group
RE: Getting pretty close to default IPv4 route maximum for
daemon@ATHENA.MIT.EDU (bedard.phil@gmail.com)
Tue May 6 13:35:32 2014
X-Original-To: nanog@nanog.org
To: Drew Weaver <drew.weaver@thenap.com>,
"'nanog@nanog.org'" <nanog@nanog.org>
From: <bedard.phil@gmail.com>
Date: Tue, 6 May 2014 13:34:35 -0400
In-Reply-To: <af8155e3b5724646b4af0f746c0a067d@EXCHANGE2K13.thenap.com>
Errors-To: nanog-bounces@nanog.org
I would like to see Cisco send something out...
-----Original Message-----
From: "Drew Weaver" <drew.weaver@thenap.com>
Sent: =E2=80=8E5/=E2=80=8E6/=E2=80=8E2014 11:42 AM
To: "'nanog@nanog.org'" <nanog@nanog.org>
Subject: Getting pretty close to default IPv4 route maximum for 6500/7600ro=
uters.
Hi all,
I am wondering if maybe we should make some kind of concerted effort to rem=
ind folks about the IPv4 routing table inching closer and closer to the 512=
K 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 confi=
gured to crash and burn after 512K routes; it may be a valuable public serv=
ice.
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 hardwa=
re 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
