[171582] in North American Network Operators' Group
Re: Getting pretty close to default IPv4 route maximum for
daemon@ATHENA.MIT.EDU (Pete Lumbis)
Tue May 6 15:48:11 2014
X-Original-To: nanog@nanog.org
In-Reply-To: <53691d35.9215ec0a.5f2c.6e04@mx.google.com>
Date: Tue, 6 May 2014 15:48:04 -0400
From: Pete Lumbis <alumbis@gmail.com>
To: bedard.phil@gmail.com
Cc: "nanog@nanog.org" <nanog@nanog.org>
Errors-To: nanog-bounces@nanog.org
There is currently a doc for the ASR9k. We're working on getting on for
6500 as well.
http://www.cisco.com/c/en/us/support/docs/routers/asr-9000-series-aggregati=
on-services-routers/116999-problem-line-card-00.html
On Tue, May 6, 2014 at 1:34 PM, <bedard.phil@gmail.com> wrote:
> 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
> 6500/7600routers.
>
> Hi all,
>
> I am wondering if maybe we should make some kind of concerted effort to
> remind folks about the IPv4 routing table inching closer and closer to th=
e
> 512K 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
> configured to crash and burn after 512K routes; it may be a valuable publ=
ic
> service.
>
> 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
> hardware 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
>
>
