[171686] in North American Network Operators' Group
RE: Getting pretty close to default IPv4 route maximum for
daemon@ATHENA.MIT.EDU (=?iso-8859-1?Q?Vitkovsk=FD_Adam?=)
Fri May 9 03:49:04 2014
X-Original-To: nanog@nanog.org
From: =?iso-8859-1?Q?Vitkovsk=FD_Adam?= <adam.vitkovsky@swan.sk>
To: "Irwin, Kevin" <Kevin.Irwin@cinbell.com>, "nanog@nanog.org"
<nanog@nanog.org>
Date: Fri, 9 May 2014 07:48:55 +0000
In-Reply-To: <CF8FBACE.8FFC%kevin.irwin@cinbell.com>
Errors-To: nanog-bounces@nanog.org
> From: NANOG [mailto:nanog-bounces@nanog.org] On Behalf Of Irwin, Kevin
> Sent: Wednesday, May 07, 2014 4:39 PM
> I=B9m really surprised that most people have not hit this limit already, =
especially
> on the 9K=B9s, as it seems Cisco has some fuzzy math when it comes to the
> 512K limit.
I would actually be very surprised if someone would hit the 512K limit on A=
SRs.=20
With 6500/7600 I can understand they've been around for ages and no one ant=
icipated the 512k limit back then.=20
But ASRs? When these where bough engineers must have known that 512k is not=
going to be enough.=20
I guess one does some reading and tweaking before installing a box as a PE =
or Internet Edge.=20
adam
=20
