[171619] in North American Network Operators' Group
Fwd: Getting pretty close to default IPv4 route maximum for 6500/7600
daemon@ATHENA.MIT.EDU (Shawn L)
Wed May 7 18:45:16 2014
X-Original-To: nanog@nanog.org
In-Reply-To: <CF8FBACE.8FFC%kevin.irwin@cinbell.com>
Date: Wed, 7 May 2014 18:45:07 -0400
From: Shawn L <shawnl@up.net>
To: nanog <nanog@nanog.org>
Errors-To: nanog-bounces@nanog.org
Do the ASR1k routers have this issue as well? I searched around but
couldn't find any information.
---------- Forwarded message ----------
From: Irwin, Kevin <Kevin.Irwin@cinbell.com>
Date: Wed, May 7, 2014 at 10:39 AM
Subject: Re: Getting pretty close to default IPv4 route maximum for
6500/7600 routers.
To: "nanog@nanog.org" <nanog@nanog.org>
I=C2=B9m really surprised that most people have not hit this limit already,
especially on the 9K=C2=B9s, as it seems Cisco has some fuzzy math when it
comes to the 512K limit.
Also make sure you have spare cards when you reload after changing the
scaling, those old cards don=C2=B9t always like to come back.
On 5/6/14, 7:01 PM, "Larry Sheldon" <LarrySheldon@cox.net> wrote:
>On 5/6/2014 10:39 AM, Drew Weaver wrote:
>
>> Just something to think about before it becomes a story the community
>> talks about for the next decade.
>
>Like we have for the last two?
>
>
>--
>Requiescas in pace o email Two identifying characteristics
> of System Administrators:
>Ex turpi causa non oritur actio Infallibility, and the ability to
> learn from their mistakes.
> (Adapted from Stephen Pinker)
The information transmitted is intended only for the person or entity to
which it is addressed and may contain confidential and/or privileged
material. Any review, retransmission, dissemination or other use of, or
taking of any action in reliance upon, this information by persons or
entities other than the intended recipient is prohibited. If you receive
this in error, please contact the sender and destroy any copies of this
document.
