[c-nsp] Sup32 TCAM limit

[Phil Bedard]

I don't know that the functionality was introduced until a software  
rev later than SXB...It certainly worked that way on SXD and SXF in my  
testsing.

Phil


On Jun 26, 2008, at 8:43 AM, marco at linuxgoeroe.dhs.org wrote:

>
>>> What I do not understand is what would happen to the routes being
>>> inserted
>>> above this limit. Would such routes be 'soft' routed ? Is there  
>>> also a
>>> treshold for
>>
>> Prefixes that cannot fit in the TCAM are punted to the MSFC, and thus
>> software switched, probably in an interrupt based CEF path.
>
> That's what supposed to happen, yes. But I ran into this recently  
> (with a
> SUP720 now upgraded to XL) and the box didn't punt the packets. It  
> just
> hardware switched them based on what was in the TCAM.
>
> Result was that the correct route was in the routing table and CEF  
> FIB,
> but packets got dropped or shunted elsewhere without any sign except  
> the
> TCAM_FULL messages, and those didn't look right either (no route in  
> the
> message at all or junk chars where it should be).
>
> This was the sup running hybrid, IOS 12.2(17d)SXB8 on the MSFC and  
> CatOS
> 8.6(1) on the SP.
> _______________________________________________
> 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/