[c-nsp] One Cat6k/Sup2T is software switching, its identical partner is not

[Jeroen van Ingen]

Hi,

>>> Are all of the acls the same on both boxes? It almost sounds like
>>> one box had a tcam explosion due to differing ACLs.
>>
>> Yes, ACLs are 100% identical, I've paid extra attention to that
>> when I vimdiff'd the configs.
>
> Are you using the LI (Lawful Intercept) features on those boxes? LI
> makes the TCAM for ACLs explode, possibly multiple times if it thinks
> ACLs are not identical between ports. This is likely to happen when
> the ACL changes.

Good one. Nope, no LI running, we don't fall under those laws. When 
packet captures are required we generally use (ER)SPAN. So that can't be it.

TCAM utilization is very low, verified by "show platform hardware pfc".

There should be some way to further identify why the Feature Manager 
comes to its conclusion that some features will be processed in software.

What still bothers me is the exception generated when reprogramming the 
interfaces, ie when I change the config for a subinterface, this 
specific router has an exception in the debug output that isn't thrown 
when I make the exact same change on the other router:

fm_core_notify_feat_exception_event() called for label: 51 i/f: 
TenGigabitEthernet2/15.1799 exception event: 0
-Traceback= 455BA44z 454ECCCz 4550414z 45553ECz 4550E30z 45512B8z 
45526B0z 5250AE0z 524A374z
fie_get_intf_localization_slot(): DFC /SUP : returning slot 2 for intf: 
TenGigabitEthernet2/15.1799
FM associate: idb = TenGigabitEthernet2/15.1799, vlabel = 51, dir = 0, 
slot = 0
  idbhal returned if state as 2 for TenGigabitEthernet2/15
  idbhal returned if state as 2 for TenGigabitEthernet2/15.1799


Regards,

Jeroen van Ingen
ICT Service Centre
University of Twente, P.O.Box 217, 7500 AE Enschede, The Netherlands