[172329] in North American Network Operators' Group
Re: FW: Getting pretty close to default IPv4 route maximum for
daemon@ATHENA.MIT.EDU (Jon Lewis)
Fri Jun 13 10:54:41 2014
X-Original-To: nanog@nanog.org
Date: Fri, 13 Jun 2014 10:54:32 -0400 (EDT)
From: Jon Lewis <jlewis@lewis.org>
To: John van Oppen <jvanoppen@spectrumnet.us>
In-Reply-To: <AF24AE2D4A4D334FB9B667985E2AE7632980E823@mail1-sea.office.spectrumnet.us>
Cc: "nanog@nanog.org" <nanog@nanog.org>
Errors-To: nanog-bounces@nanog.org
On Mon, 9 Jun 2014, John van Oppen wrote:
> It is generally much better to do the following:
>
> mls cef maximum-routes ipv6 90
> mls cef maximum-routes ip-multicast 1
>
> This will leave v4 and mpls in one big pool, puts v6 to something useful for quite a while and steals all of the multicast space which is not really used on most deployments.
>
> This gives us the following (which is pretty great for IP backbone purposes in dual stack):
>
> #show mls cef maximum-routes
> FIB TCAM maximum routes :
> =======================
> Current :-
> -------
> IPv4 + MPLS - 832k (default)
> IPv6 - 90k
> IP multicast - 1k
I was just looking at / thinking about this again, and though I don't
disagree that doing the split your way is probably better, I think it's a
moot point. I strongly suspect these boxes will run out of RAM before
they're able to utilize another 256k routing slots with multiple full v4
tables.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Jon Lewis, MCP :) | I route
| therefore you are
_________ http://www.lewis.org/~jlewis/pgp for PGP public key_________
