[c-nsp] Full net table too large for Sup720 already?

[Brandon Bennett]

You are correct,  default settings it will be ok up to 512k of IPv4
routes.  Same tuning techniques can be used to bring that number
significantly higher (but by that time we will all be starting threads
on IPv6 TCAM size)

~Brandon

On 10/29/07, Ramcharan, Vijay A <vijay.ramcharan at verizonbusiness.com> wrote:
> Am I correct in saying that the 3BXL is not hindered by the 239K
> ceiling?
>
> According to
> http://www.cisco.com/en/US/products/hw/modules/ps2797/products_data_shee
> t09186a0080159856.html it appears that the 3BXL is more than ready for
> projected increases in the size of the full BGP table.
>
>
> Vijay Ramcharan
>
>
>
> -----Original Message-----
> From: cisco-nsp-bounces at puck.nether.net
> [mailto:cisco-nsp-bounces at puck.nether.net] On Behalf Of Euan Galloway
> Sent: Saturday, October 27, 2007 9:48 AM
> To: cisco-nsp at puck.nether.net
> Subject: Re: [c-nsp] Full net table too large for Sup720 already?
>
> On Sat, Oct 27, 2007 at 02:32:26AM -0400, Afsheen Bigdeli wrote:
> >  From this post:
> >
> > http://puck.nether.net/pipermail/cisco-nsp/2006-August/032846.html
>
> Don't believe that idiot ;-)
>
> > It appears that the magic number, assuming you've tweaked the TCAM
> > appropriately, is somewhere between 244736 to 245546 routes.
> >
> > I'd be interested to see what (if anything) happens when that number
> is
> > reached.
>
> Well plenty of people have reached the untuned magic number already.
>
> Depending on software version/features used/network design, you'll
> either
> get software switching of, or unreachability to prefixes that don't
> fit into the TCAM. Amusingly you software switch / lose "big" prefixes
> first.
> So networks that just announce a /8 disappear, but those announcing
> every /24.. FINE.
>
> http://puck.nether.net/pipermail/cisco-nsp/2007-June/041598.html
>
> Shows the impact when full BGP table met default 192k tcam limit.
> Looks like anything /8 - /14 would have gone a bit wrong unless covered
> by a more specific.
>
> Oh the irony.
>
> Double irony was that it was the fact that there *was* a default route
> that
> triggered the bug (if I'm remembering correctly, which I might not).
>
> --
> Euan Galloway
> _______________________________________________
> 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/
> _______________________________________________
> 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/
>