nanog mailing list archives
Re: max-prefix and platform tcam limits: they are things
From: Hank Nussbacher <hank () efes iucc ac il>
Date: Sat, 6 Oct 2012 22:02:35 +0200 (IST)
On Fri, 5 Oct 2012, jim deleskie wrote:Just ask yourself how many times you have seen a Godaddy IP/NOC person post anything to NANOG or to any other technical forum?
-Hank
Yes that math would work, but if your device can't handle 1x Internet routing and your running without some serious max-prefix/filters it says even more about your IP eng team then I'd be willing to comment on. -jim On Fri, Oct 5, 2012 at 9:17 PM, <Valdis.Kletnieks () vt edu> wrote:On Fri, 05 Oct 2012 21:05:07 -0300, jim deleskie said:But here goes, 210x the size of normal really? 210% I'd have a hard time believing. Did anyone else anywhere see a route leak equal to larger then the entire Internet that day, anywhere else that could of caused this?If the device was only expecting 2K or so internal routes, getting hit with the 440K routes in the DFZ would be 210x....
Current thread:
- max-prefix and platform tcam limits: they are things Anton Kapela (Oct 05)
- Re: max-prefix and platform tcam limits: they are things jim deleskie (Oct 05)
- Re: max-prefix and platform tcam limits: they are things Valdis . Kletnieks (Oct 05)
- Re: max-prefix and platform tcam limits: they are things jim deleskie (Oct 05)
- Re: max-prefix and platform tcam limits: they are things Hank Nussbacher (Oct 06)
- Re: max-prefix and platform tcam limits: they are things David Miller (Oct 05)
- Re: max-prefix and platform tcam limits: they are things Valdis . Kletnieks (Oct 05)
- Re: max-prefix and platform tcam limits: they are things Jon Lewis (Oct 05)
- Re: max-prefix and platform tcam limits: they are things joel jaeggli (Oct 05)
- Re: max-prefix and platform tcam limits: they are things Lane Powers (Oct 05)
- Re: max-prefix and platform tcam limits: they are things jim deleskie (Oct 05)