[c-nsp] 6500/7600 TCAM Usage

James Bensley jwbensley at gmail.com
Fri Jun 3 11:39:32 EDT 2016

On 3 June 2016 at 08:10, Saku Ytti <saku at ytti.fi> wrote:
> Not really, BGP table growth is not random at all.
> http://www.potaroo.net/ispcol/2016-01/bgp2015.html

I was thinking of potaroo, and also;


>> What puzzles me is: how do vendors go about that in
>> the long run? I have been using my search engine of
>> least distrust to no avail. Which platforms offer vastly
>> bigger TCAMs, like at least twofold, better an order
>> of magnitude?
> Not all platforms use TCAMs. Lot of Juniper kit, like MX, QFX10k, PTX
> use various types of DRAM solution, this makes FIB usually not your
> bottleneck, search time to larger database becomes an issue too.

If vendors switched to using hashed tables we would get consistent
look up times irrelevant of table size.

> Yes. But how to deal with that in hostile environment? There is
> stealth startup doing something like above, but I'm skeptical. I know
> some of them read this list, maybe they'll chime in.

If you're feeling brave you can test http://route-aggregation.net/ on
a live system and let the rest of us know how it goes? :) I'm keen to
try it but I have no opportunity.


More information about the cisco-nsp mailing list