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

[Jared Mauch]

On Mon, Oct 29, 2007 at 11:45:25AM -0600, Brandon Bennett wrote:
> 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)

	Yup, i'm kinda interested how far some of the smaller isps and
enterprises are doing on IPv6 deployments.  There's a lot of people that
think we're not gonna need or want to v6.

Router-3BXL#show mls cef max 
FIB TCAM maximum routes :
=======================
Current :-
-------
 IPv4 + MPLS         - 512k (default)
 IPv6 + IP Multicast - 256k (default)

Router-3B#show mls cef maximum-routes 
FIB TCAM maximum routes :
=======================
Current :-
-------
 IPv4 + MPLS         - 192k (default)
 IPv6 + IP Multicast - 32k (default)


	- Jared

	http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_y36fG2Oba0

> 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.
> >

-- 
Jared Mauch  | pgp key available via finger from jared at puck.nether.net
clue++;      | http://puck.nether.net/~jared/  My statements are only mine.