[171585] in North American Network Operators' Group
RE:Getting pretty close to default IPv4 route maximum for 6500/7600
daemon@ATHENA.MIT.EDU (Ca By)
Tue May 6 18:04:54 2014
X-Original-To: nanog@nanog.org
In-Reply-To: <SNT146-W279D8AAAA6C87ADA0B7658AE4F0@phx.gbl>
Date: Tue, 6 May 2014 15:04:45 -0700
From: Ca By <cb.list6@gmail.com>
To: Darin <synack@live.com>
Cc: nanog@nanog.org
Errors-To: nanog-bounces@nanog.org
On May 6, 2014 12:32 PM, "Darin" <synack@live.com> wrote:
>
> And since those puppies are going to need a reload after adjustment make
sure your not exposed to the component decay issue for cards manufactured
between 2005-2010 or you could have a interesting night.
>
> We've hit that issue on three different 7600 chassis.
>
> Darin
>
You are not the only one, major manufacturing defects...
http://www.cisco.com/go/memory
>
>
> -----Original Message-----
>
> From: NANOG [mailto:nanog-bounces@nanog.org] On Behalf Of Drew Weaver
>
> Sent: Tuesday, May 06, 2014 10:39 AM
>
> To: 'nanog@nanog.org'
>
> Subject: Getting pretty close to default IPv4 route maximum for 6500/7600
> routers.
>
>
>
> 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
>
>
>
