nanog mailing list archives
Re: Getting pretty close to default IPv4 route maximum for 6500/7600 routers.
From: Matthew Petach <mpetach () netflight com>
Date: Tue, 10 Jun 2014 17:03:09 -0700
On Tue, Jun 10, 2014 at 11:36 AM, Blake Hudson <blake () ispn net> wrote:
joel jaeggli wrote the following on 6/10/2014 1:10 PM: On 6/10/14, 10:39 AM, Blake Hudson wrote:Łukasz Bromirski wrote the following on 6/10/2014 12:15 PM:Hi Blake, On 10 Jun 2014, at 19:04, Blake Hudson <blake () ispn net> wrote: In this case, does the 512k limit of the 6500/7600 refer to the RIBor the FIB? And does it even matter since the BGP prefix table can automatically be reduced to ~300k routes?Te 512k limit refers to FIB in the B/C (base) versions of 6500/7600 Supervisors and DFCs (for line cards). BXL/CXL versions have FIB for 1M IPv4 prefixes. You can find more information here: http://www.cisco.com/c/en/us/support/docs/switches/ catalyst-6500-series-switches/117712-problemsolution-cat6500-00.html And yes, you’re right - no matter how many neighbors you have, the FIB will only contain best paths, so it will be closer to 500k entries in total rather than N times number of neighbours. Please correct me if I'm wrong, but if the BGP table contains ~500kprefixes, which are then summarized into ~300k routes (RIB),Unlikely, just because prefixes could be cidr aggregated doesn't mean they are. the more specifics exist for a reason, in the case of deaggrates with no covering anouncement, well not much you're doing with those. your rib should be the sum of all received routes that you did not filter.On the couple Cisco platforms I have available with full tables, Cisco summarizes BGP by default. Since this thread is talking about Cisco gear, I think it's more topical than results from BIRD. One example from a non-transit AS: ASR#sh ip route sum IP routing table name is default (0x0) IP routing table maximum-paths is 32 Route Source Networks Subnets Replicates Overhead Memory (bytes) connected 0 10 0 600 1800 static 1 2 0 180 540 application 0 0 0 0 0 bgp xxxxx 164817 330796 0 29736780 89210340 External: 495613 Internal: 0 Local: 0 internal 5799 20123680 Total 170617 330808 0 29737560 109336360
I'm not sure you're reading that correctly. 164817+330796 = 495613 That is, the BGP routing table size is the union of the "Networks" and the "Subnets"; it's not magically doing any summarization for you. Matt
Current thread:
- Re: Getting pretty close to default IPv4 route maximum for 6500/7600 routers. Blake Hudson (Jun 10)
- Re: Getting pretty close to default IPv4 route maximum for 6500/7600 routers. Łukasz Bromirski (Jun 10)
- Re: Getting pretty close to default IPv4 route maximum for 6500/7600 routers. joel jaeggli (Jun 10)
- Re: Getting pretty close to default IPv4 route maximum for 6500/7600 routers. Blake Hudson (Jun 10)
- Re: Getting pretty close to default IPv4 route maximum for 6500/7600 routers. Łukasz Bromirski (Jun 10)
- Re: Getting pretty close to default IPv4 route maximum for 6500/7600 routers. Mark Tinka (Jun 10)
- Re: Getting pretty close to default IPv4 route maximum for 6500/7600 routers. joel jaeggli (Jun 10)
- Re: Getting pretty close to default IPv4 route maximum for 6500/7600 routers. Blake Hudson (Jun 10)
- Re: Getting pretty close to default IPv4 route maximum for 6500/7600 routers. Matthew Petach (Jun 10)
- Re: Getting pretty close to default IPv4 route maximum for 6500/7600 routers. Blake Hudson (Jun 11)
- Re: Getting pretty close to default IPv4 route maximum for 6500/7600 routers. Łukasz Bromirski (Jun 10)
- Re: Getting pretty close to default IPv4 route maximum for 6500/7600 routers. Saku Ytti (Jun 10)
- Re: Getting pretty close to default IPv4 route maximum for 6500/7600 routers. Jimmy Hess (Jun 11)
- <Possible follow-ups>
- RE: Getting pretty close to default IPv4 route maximum for 6500/7600 routers. Tony Wicks (Jun 10)
- RE: Getting pretty close to default IPv4 route maximum for 6500/7600 routers. John van Oppen (Jun 10)