[f-nsp] CAM and ip net-aggregate or ip supernet aggregate - does it help to free the cam up ? WAS:AW: cam strangeness

[Gerald Krause]

On Tuesday 07 March 2006 23:42, Stephen J. Wilcox wrote:
> In summary I have a /9 in teh routing table, it is set to route to a
> particular next hop in BGP, this next hop has two OSPF paths. I dont
> see the /9 in the cam but i do see /32s.
>
> Perhaps this is caused by a load balancing phenemenon - it sees
> conflicting host routes in the cam and therefore does not add the
> aggregate

This was my first impression too but now I found other /32 CAM entries 
for destinations without loadbalanced next hops which breaks this 
theorie from my point of view:

#sh cam ip 1/1 | inc  12.216
  1   8377    12.216.34.147/32  0050.e28c.9156    83 1 ether 1/1

 --

#sh ip cache 12.216.34.147
Total number of cache entries: 90822
D:Dynamic  P:Permanent  F:Forward  U:Us  C:Complex Filter
W:Wait ARP  I:ICMP Deny  K:Drop  R:Fragment  S:Snap Encap
      IP Address         Next Hop        MAC              Type  Port  
      12.216.34.147      84.233.185.1    0050.e28c.9156   DF    1/1   

CAM Entry Flag: 0000000000000000H

 --

#sh ip route 12.216.34.147
Total number of IP routes: 180397
        Destination     NetMask         Gateway         Port Cost Type
        12.128.0.0      255.128.0.0     84.233.185.1    1/1       B

 --


#sh ip bgp 12.216.34.147
    Network            Next Hop        Metric LocPrf Weight 
*>  12.128.0.0/9       84.233.185.1                100    100    
*i  12.128.0.0/9       194.97.172.109  0           100    0      
*i  12.128.0.0/9       194.221.220.128 0           100    0      

 --

#sh ip route 84.233.185.1
Total number of IP routes: 180402
        Destination     NetMask         Gateway  Port Cost Type
        84.233.185.0    255.255.255.252 0.0.0.0  1/1  1      D


> I'm investigating some more....

Same here, still struggle with it.


-- 
Gerald