[c-nsp] IPv6 uRPF broken on NCS5500 XR 6.2.3?

Mark Tinka mark.tinka at seacom.mu
Mon Feb 26 03:02:12 EST 2018


One of the reasons I'm not very keen on using merchant silicon for
high-touch routing.

Mark.

On 24/Feb/18 10:19, Chris Welti wrote:
> Hi David,
>
> uRPF on the NCS5500 is a mess due to limitations of the Jericho
> chipset. It has to do with the TCAM optimizations and twice the number
> of route lookups needed for uRPF (src/dst)
>
> From what I understand:
>
> On SE-models for uRPF to work you need to disable double-capacity mode
> (you will lose space for half of the routes!)
>
> hw-module tcam fib ipv4 scaledisable
>
> depending on the software you are running, you might also need to
> reserve IPv6 space in the eTCAM:
>
> hw-module profile tcam fib ipv4 unicast percent 50
> hw-module profile tcam fib ipv6 unicast percent 50
>
> For non-SE models you need to disable all the iTCAM optimizations
>
> hw-module fib ipv4 scale host-optimized-disable
> hw-module fib ipv6 scale internet-optimized-disable
>
> Unfortunately, that way the current full table won't fit anymore in
> non-SE models.
>
> IMHO it's best not to use uRPF at all on this platform.
>
> See also bugID CSCvf44418, and the excellent Cisco Live presentation
> "NCS5500: Deepdive in the Merchant Silicon High-end SP Routers -
> BRKSPG-2900" from Nicolas Fevrier. Make sure you get the latest one
> from Barcelona 2018, which includes details about uRPF.
>
> Regards,
> Chris
>
> Am 23.02.18 um 22:58 schrieb David Hubbard:
>> Hi all, curious if anyone has run into issues with IPv6 uRPF on
>> NCS5500 and/or XR 6.2.3?  I have an interface where I added:
>>
>> Ipv4 verify unicast source reachable-via any
>> ipv6 verify unicast source reachable-via any
>>
>> and immediately lost my ability to talk to a BGP peer connected to it
>> using a local /126 range; no ping, tcp, etc.  There’s obviously a
>> route in FIB given it’s connected and up, but I did check.  The same
>> issue does not occur with the remote IPv4 peering address on a /30
>> net, suggesting uRPF for ipv4 doesn’t have the same bug.
>>
>> Thanks
>>
>>
>> _______________________________________________
>> 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/



More information about the cisco-nsp mailing list