[nsp] RPF on Catalyst 6k

[Florian Weimer]

sthaug@nethelp.no writes:

> Using uRPF checks reduces the usable size of the CEF table to half of
> the original

Hmm, is this a problem?  It seems that CEF entries are properly
aggregated before they are written to the table, so even 64K entries
should be enough for some time.  At least the output of "show mls cef
hardware" is quite encouraging over here; there are much more prefixes
in our routing table than those that actually end up in the CEF TCAM.

(I'd like to run full-table BGP on the router just to be able to
detect bogus traffic more easily, and it would be a shame if we'd had
to sacrifice uRPF checking for that.)

-- 
Florian Weimer 	                  Weimer@CERT.Uni-Stuttgart.DE
University of Stuttgart           http://CERT.Uni-Stuttgart.DE/people/fw/
RUS-CERT                          fax +49-711-685-5898