[171584] in North American Network Operators' Group
Re: Getting pretty close to default IPv4 route maximum for 6500/7600
daemon@ATHENA.MIT.EDU (Rob Seastrom)
Tue May 6 16:20:11 2014
X-Original-To: nanog@nanog.org
To: Vlade Ristevski <vristevs@ramapo.edu>
From: Rob Seastrom <rs@seastrom.com>
Date: Tue, 06 May 2014 16:20:03 -0400
In-Reply-To: <53690F5F.1050801@ramapo.edu> (Vlade Ristevski's message of "Tue,
06 May 2014 12:35:43 -0400")
Cc: nanog@nanog.org
Errors-To: nanog-bounces@nanog.org
I just recently got four sets off eBay. Purportedly genuine Cisco. A
shade over $100. Raid the departmental beer fund. :)
-r
Vlade Ristevski <vristevs@ramapo.edu> writes:
> It would probably be a good time to upgrade the memory on my 7206
> NPE-G1 as well (512MB). I was going to replace the router but am going
> to keep it around for the Fall Semester. Anyone know of any good 3rd
> party memory modules that are equivalent to the MEM-NPE-G1-1GB? I got
> a quote for the official Cisco ones last summer and it was around
> $5,000 lol
>
> On 5/6/2014 11:39 AM, Drew Weaver wrote:
>> 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 the 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 public 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
>>
> Vlad
