[nsp] ip verify unicast reverse-path confirmation?

[Sam Stickland]

There's definately an increase in MSFC CPU load on our supervisor 2s when we
enable uRPF. Not a great deal, but some. Maybe surpressed verifications have
to be handled by the MSFC?

Sam

----- Original Message -----
From: <lee.e.rian at census.gov>
To: "Nicolas Sayer" <Nicolas.Sayer at inria.fr>
Cc: <cisco-nsp at puck.nether.net>
Sent: Thursday, December 04, 2003 9:02 PM
Subject: Re: [nsp] ip verify unicast reverse-path confirmation?


> I think uRPF handling depends on the hardware
> - Sup 1: everything gets forwarded to the MSFC
> - Sup 2: handled in hardware
>
> Lee
>
>
> ========== original message ====================
> Message: 8
> Date: Thu, 4 Dec 2003 16:58:54 +0100
> From: Nicolas Sayer <Nicolas.Sayer at inria.fr>
> Subject: Re: [nsp] ip verify unicast reverse-path confirmation?
> To: cisco-nsp at puck.nether.net
> Message-ID: <C2C60CF6-2672-11D8-98A2-000A95887BEE at inria.fr>
> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=US-ASCII; format=flowed
>
> hello all,
>
> off topic question about "ip verify unicast reverse-path", i had to
> take out of my WAN interface configuration because it was burning out
> the CPU (interupts). Does each packet (from one TCP flow for example)
> HAS to have it's source address checked against the routing table, thus
> sent to the CPU ? couldn't cef take care of stamping the source address
> as : ok
>
> fyi: i have a 6500 switch enhanced with an msfc1 for routing,
>
>              cheers, Nick.
>
> On jeudi, nov 6, 2003, at 20:01 Europe/Paris, Bob Snyder wrote:
>
> > Is there any command to see the effects of the "ip verify unicast
> > reverse-path" command? Packet drop counters, etc?
> >
> > Bob
> ===============================================
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> cisco-nsp mailing list  cisco-nsp at puck.nether.net
> https://puck.nether.net/mailman/listinfo/cisco-nsp
> archive at http://puck.nether.net/pipermail/cisco-nsp/
>