Re: Getting pretty close to default IPv4 route maximum for 6500/7600routers.

[Jon Lewis <jlewis () lewis org>]

Why, in your example, do you bias the split so heavily toward IPv4 that 
the router won't be able to handle a current full v6 table?  I've been 
using

mls cef maximum-routes ip 768

which is probably still a little too liberal for IPv6

FIB TCAM maximum routes :
=======================
Current :-
-------
 IPv4                - 768k
 MPLS                - 16k (default)
 IPv6 + IP Multicast - 120k (default)

given that a full v6 table is around 17k routes today.

A more important question though is how many 6500/7600 routers will fully 
survive the reload required to affect this change?  I've lost a blade 
(presumably to the bad memory issue) each time I've rebooted a 6500 to 
apply this.

On Mon, 9 Jun 2014, Pete Lumbis wrote:

> The doc on how to adjust the 6500/7600 TCAM space was just published.
>
> http://www.cisco.com/c/en/us/support/docs/switches/catalyst-6500-series-switches/117712-problemsolution-cat6500-00.html
>
>
> On Tue, May 6, 2014 at 3:48 PM, Pete Lumbis <alumbis () gmail com> wrote:
>
> > There is currently a doc for the ASR9k. We're working on getting on for
> > 6500 as well.
> >
> >
> > http://www.cisco.com/c/en/us/support/docs/routers/asr-9000-series-aggregation-services-routers/116999-problem-line-card-00.html
> >
> >
> >
> >
> > On Tue, May 6, 2014 at 1:34 PM, <bedard.phil () gmail com> wrote:
> >
> > > I would like to see Cisco send something out...
> > >
> > > -----Original Message-----
> > > From: "Drew Weaver" <drew.weaver () thenap com>
> > > Sent: ÿÿ5/ÿÿ6/ÿÿ2014 11:42 AM
> > > To: "'nanog () nanog org'" <nanog () nanog org>
> > > Subject: Getting pretty close to default IPv4 route maximum for
> > > 6500/7600routers.
> > >
> > > Hi all,
> > >
> > > I am wondering if maybe we should make some kind of concerted effort to
> > > remind folks about the IPv4 routing table inching closer and closer to the
> > > 512K route mark.
> > >
> > > We are at about 94/95% right now of 512K.
> > >
> > > For most of us, the 512K route mark is arbitrary but for a lot of folks
> > > who may still be running 6500/7600 or other routers which are by default
> > > configured to crash and burn after 512K routes; it may be a valuable public
> > > service.
> > >
> > > Even if you don't have this scenario in your network today; chances are
> > > you connect to someone who connects to someone who connects to someone
> > > (etc...) that does.
> > >
> > > In case anyone wants to check on a 6500, you can run:  show platform
> > > hardware capacity pfc and then look under L3 Forwarding Resources.
> > >
> > > Just something to think about before it becomes a story the community
> > > talks about for the next decade.
> > >
> > > -Drew

----------------------------------------------------------------------
 Jon Lewis, MCP :)           |  I route
                             |  therefore you are
_________ http://www.lewis.org/~jlewis/pgp for PGP public key_________