[171579] in North American Network Operators' Group
RE:Getting pretty close to default IPv4 route maximum for 6500/7600
daemon@ATHENA.MIT.EDU (Darin)
Tue May 6 15:30:41 2014
X-Original-To: nanog@nanog.org
From: Darin <synack@live.com>
To: "nanog@nanog.org" <nanog@nanog.org>, "drew.weaver@thenap.com"
<drew.weaver@thenap.com>
Date: Tue, 6 May 2014 10:55:35 -0500
Errors-To: nanog-bounces@nanog.org
And since those puppies are going to need a reload after adjustment make su=
re your not exposed to the component decay issue for cards manufactured bet=
ween 2005-2010 or you could have a interesting night.
We've hit that issue on three different 7600 chassis.
Darin=20
=0A=
=0A=
-----Original Message-----
=0A=
From: NANOG [mailto:nanog-bounces@nanog.org] On Behalf Of Drew Weaver
=0A=
Sent: Tuesday=2C May 06=2C 2014 10:39 AM
=0A=
To: 'nanog@nanog.org'
=0A=
Subject: Getting pretty close to default IPv4 route maximum for 6500/7600=
=0A=
routers.=0A=
=0A=
=0A=
=0A=
Hi all=2C=0A=
=0A=
=0A=
=0A=
I am wondering if maybe we should make some kind of=0A=
concerted effort to remind folks about the IPv4 routing table inching close=
r=0A=
and closer to the 512K route mark.=0A=
=0A=
=0A=
=0A=
We are at about 94/95% right now of 512K.=0A=
=0A=
=0A=
=0A=
For most of us=2C the 512K route mark is arbitrary but for=0A=
a lot of folks who may still be running 6500/7600 or other routers which ar=
e by=0A=
default configured to crash and burn after 512K routes=3B it may be a valua=
ble=0A=
public service.=0A=
=0A=
=0A=
=0A=
Even if you don't have this scenario in your network=0A=
today=3B chances are you connect to someone who connects to someone who con=
nects=0A=
to someone (etc...) that does.=0A=
=0A=
=0A=
=0A=
In case anyone wants to check on a 6500=2C you can=0A=
run: show platform hardware capacity pfc=0A=
and then look under L3 Forwarding Resources.=0A=
=0A=
=0A=
=0A=
Just something to think about before it becomes a story=0A=
the community talks about for the next decade.=0A=
=0A=
=0A=
=0A=
-Drew=0A=
=0A=
=
