nanog mailing list archives
Re: "2M today, 10M with no change in technology"? An informal survey.
From: "William Herrin" <herrin-nanog () dirtside com>
Date: Tue, 28 Aug 2007 15:11:52 -0400
On 8/27/07, Deepak Jain <deepak () ai net> wrote:
an MSFC2 can hold 256,000 entries in its FIB of which 12,000 are reserved for Multicast. I do not know if the 12,000 can be set to serve the general purpose. The MSFC2 therefore can server 244,000 routes without uRPF turned on.
I'm hit square on with this because I use Sup2's with the msfc2/pfc2 for the link to both of my transit providers. I took this up with the Cisco TAC overnight to find out where I stand. Here's what I found: 1. The msfc2/pfc2 does in fact have a limit that starts at 244,000 routes. 2. Once the limit is reached, excess routes will fail over to software switching. TAC did not specify how routes are designated as excess. 3. The Sup 720 (except for the 3bxl) has a similar limit, however the "mls cef maximum-routes" command can be used to make upwards of 260,000 TCAM entries available to IPv4 unicast routing. The Sup 2 does not support this command. 4. The suggested upgrade path is the Supervisor 720-3BXL whose TCAM can support up to 1M IPv4 FIB entries or 500k IPv6 FIB entries. With a 7600 (instead of a 6500) the RSP 720-3CXL can do the same and also has a faster processor, more memory, etc. Now, my request for help: I have a leaf node on the DFZ handled by a pair of Sup2's (pfc2/msfc2), two transit providers and several peers. My focus is very heavily domestic, and I'd like to delay my upgrade. I'd like to buy some time by aggregating the incoming APNIC region prefixes (http://www.iana.org/assignments/ipv4-address-space) into the following FIB entries: 58.0.0.0/7 60.0.0.0/7 116.0.0.0/6 120.0.0.0/6 124.0.0.0/7 126.0.0.0/8 202.0.0.0/7 210.0.0.0/7 218.0.0.0/7 220.0.0.0/7 222.0.0.0/8 Can anyone suggest how to program that into the router or refer me to the URL of the correct documentation at Cisco's site? Thanks in advance, Bill Herrin -- William D. Herrin herrin () dirtside com bill () herrin us 3005 Crane Dr. Web: <http://bill.herrin.us/> Falls Church, VA 22042-3004
Current thread:
- Re: "2M today, 10M with no change in technology"? An informal survey., (continued)
- Re: "2M today, 10M with no change in technology"? An informal survey. Chris L. Morrow (Aug 27)
- Re: "2M today, 10M with no change in technology"? An informal survey. Alex Pilosov (Aug 27)
- Re: "2M today, 10M with no change in technology"? An informal survey. Justin M. Streiner (Aug 27)
- Re: "2M today, 10M with no change in technology"? An informal survey. Hex Star (Aug 27)
- NANOG Humour (Re: "2M today, 10M with no change in technology"? An informal survey.) Alex Pilosov (Aug 27)
- Re: "2M today, 10M with no change in technology"? An informal survey. John A. Kilpatrick (Aug 27)
- Re: "2M today, 10M with no change in technology"? An informal survey. Jon Lewis (Aug 27)
- Re: "2M today, 10M with no change in technology"? An informal survey. Donald Stahl (Aug 27)
- Re: "2M today, 10M with no change in technology"? An informal survey. John A. Kilpatrick (Aug 27)
- Re: "2M today, 10M with no change in technology"? An informal survey. John Curran (Aug 27)
- Re: "2M today, 10M with no change in technology"? An informal survey. William Herrin (Aug 28)
- Re: "2M today, 10M with no change in technology"? An informal survey. Mark Smith (Aug 28)
- Re: "2M today, 10M with no change in technology"? An informal survey. Eric Gauthier (Aug 28)
- RE: "2M today, 10M with no change in technology"? An informal survey. Lincoln Dale (Aug 28)
- RE: "2M today, 10M with no change in technology"? An informal survey. Donald Stahl (Aug 28)
- RE: "2M today, 10M with no change in technology"? An informal survey. Lincoln Dale (Aug 28)
- RE: "2M today, 10M with no change in technology"? An informal survey. Mikael Abrahamsson (Aug 28)
- Re: "2M today, 10M with no change in technology"? An informal survey. John A. Kilpatrick (Aug 29)