[f-nsp] exceed configured CAM size, larger partition size required

Kennedy, Joseph Joseph.Kennedy at purchase.edu
Fri Jan 24 16:40:03 EST 2014 

IP receive cam is for rACL's aka ip receive ACL's.  Basically you would use the "ip receive ..." command to bind an ACL to all your interfaces in the default VRF and limit traffic directed to those interfaces . If you look at your cam-partition usage it shouldn't use more than a single entry unless you've explicitly configured it. If you aren't using the ACL in question for transit traffic but rather to protect your router IP's I would say you should switch to rACL's (unless you are running VRF's).  You might even consider cam-sharing if the restrictions don't apply to you(like doesn't work with ve's).

Darren, do you mind showing us your ACL(with IP ranges omitted or changed if necessary) and your current cam-partition usage for a typical line card with XMR4 vs XMR16? You can limit the usage stats to the [Session] sections.

--JK

-----Original Message-----
From: foundry-nsp [mailto:foundry-nsp-bounces at puck.nether.net] On Behalf Of Eldon Koyle
Sent: Friday, January 24, 2014 3:54 PM
To: 'Darren O'Connor'
Cc: foundry-nsp at puck.nether.net
Subject: Re: [f-nsp] exceed configured CAM size, larger partition size required

You might check the receive-cam value.  It is documented in the security guide.  The default is 1024 on the MLX, not sure if it is different for XMR.  It says this is "the maximum number of ACL CAM entries that are allowed"; 1024 sounds a bit low if you are applying an ACL on every interface.

Assuming that each line in an ACL consumes one such entry and each interface requires its own copy of the ACL, you could apply a 20-line ACL to 51 interfaces before you ran out.  I could be interpreting this wrong, though.

MLXe8-M# show default values | inc receive-cam
receive-cam              1024       16384      1024       1024       1024       No        

--
Eldon Koyle
--
BOFH excuse #350:
paradigm shift...without a clutch


On  Jan 24 19:20+0000, Kennedy, Joseph wrote:
> Are you using the same line cards in the XMR4 as you are in the XMR8's and XMR16's?
> 
> Are you using tcp/udp port ranges in the ACL in question? (I believe 
> every tcp/udp port in the range may require its own CAM entry)
> 
> --JK
> 
> -----Original Message-----
> From: foundry-nsp [mailto:foundry-nsp-bounces at puck.nether.net] On 
> Behalf Of Darren O'Connor
> Sent: Friday, January 24, 2014 1:05 PM
> To: Eldon Koyle
> Cc: foundry-nsp at puck.nether.net
> Subject: Re: [f-nsp] exceed configured CAM size, larger partition size 
> required
> 
> ACL applied is only 20 lines long. I have just a handful of ACLs applied elsewhere.
> 
> yes the XMR16 has a load more ports, but that should not cause an issue due to the tiny ACLs I'm using. 
> 
> same tcam profile used on all boxes: CAM partitioning profile: 
> multi-service-4
> 
> system max:
> 
> sh run | inc system-max
> system-max vlan 4095
> system-max ip-cache 768000
> system-max ip-route 768000
> system-max virtual-interface 4095
> system-max ipv6-cache 32000
> system-max ipv6-route 32000
> system-max lsp-out-acl-cam 1000
> 
> 
> Thanks
> Darren
> http://www.mellowd.co.uk/ccie
> 
> 
> 
> 
> > Date: Fri, 24 Jan 2014 09:58:06 -0700
> > From: ekoyle at gmail.com
> > To: darrenoc at outlook.com
> > CC: foundry-nsp at puck.nether.net
> > Subject: Re: [f-nsp] exceed configured CAM size, larger partition 
> > size required
> > 
> > Which cam-partition profile are you using? How long are your ACLs? 
> > I'm guessing your XMR16 has a lot more ports than any of your XMR4s, 
> > so that could explain why you are having issues there.
> > 
> > --
> > Eldon Koyle
> > 
> > On Jan 24 9:01+0000, Darren O'Connor wrote:
> > > Most interfaces have a single IP, some have 2. No more than that
> > > 
> > > Thanks
> > > Darren
> > > http://www.mellowd.co.uk/ccie
> > > 
> > > 
> > > 
> > > Subject: Re: [f-nsp] exceed configured CAM size, larger partition 
> > > size required
> > > From: mtindle at he.net
> > > Date: Thu, 23 Jan 2014 15:54:25 -0800
> > > CC: foundry-nsp at puck.nether.net
> > > To: darrenoc at outlook.com
> > > 
> > > Check if you have a lot of IP addresses configured on interfaces. The rACL has to be applied for each inbound IP address the router could be listening on. The limited CAM size for rACLs can have an impact if there are a lot of IPs and the ACL is long. 
> > > Regards,Mike
> > > 
> > > On Jan 23, 2014, at 8:14 AM, Darren O'Connor <darrenoc at outlook.com> wrote:
> > > 
> > > 
> > > Last weekend we added new receive ACLs to our XMRs. All our XMRs (4, 8, and 16) have identical TCAM profiles set up.
> > > 
> > > I had applied the new receive ACL to 4 XMR4s with no problems. When applying it to an XMR16 in-band I lost connection to the box. Going through OOB I removed and re-added the ACL. I was shown this error:
> > > 
> > > Port 16/1, IP Receive ACL 199 exceed configured CAM size, larger partition size required.
> > > Unbinding IP Receive ACL 199
> > > Port 2/1, IP Receive ACL 199 exceed configured CAM size, larger partition size required.
> > > Unbinding IP Receive ACL 199
> > > Port 9/1, IP Receive ACL 199 exceed configured CAM size, larger partition size required.
> > > Unbinding IP Receive ACL 199
> > > Port 6/1, IP Receive ACL 199 exceed configured CAM size, larger partition size required.
> > > Unbinding IP Receive ACL 199
> > > Port 5/1, IP Receive ACL 199 exceed configured CAM size, larger partition size required.
> > > Unbinding IP Receive ACL 199
> > > Port 3/1, IP Receive ACL 199 exceed configured CAM size, larger partition size required.
> > > Unbinding IP Receive ACL 199
> > > Port 1/1, IP Receive ACL 199 exceed configured CAM size, larger partition size required.
> > > Unbinding IP Receive ACL 199
> > > Port 4/1, IP Receive ACL 199 exceed configured CAM size, larger partition size required.
> > > Unbinding IP Receive ACL 199
> > > 
> > > Port 16/3, IP Receive ACL 180 exceed configured CAM size, larger partition size required.
> > > Unbinding IP Receive ACL 180
> > > 
> > > 
> > > Odd, as mentioned all my cam-partitions are identical across all boxes. After this happened I did not try and add it to any other box as it was too disruptive.
> > > 
> > > Any ideas why I would get this? Currently on 5.4d and was upgrading to 5.4e on the night.
> > > 
> > > 
> > > Thanks
> > > Darren
> > > http://www.mellowd.co.uk/ccie
> > > 
> > > 
> > > _______________________________________________
> > > foundry-nsp mailing list
> > > foundry-nsp at puck.nether.net
> > > http://puck.nether.net/mailman/listinfo/foundry-nsp
> > > 
> > > *----------- H U R R I C A N E - E L E C T R I C ---------->>
> > > | Mike Tindle | Senior Network Engineer | mtindle at he.net ASN 6939 
> > > | | http://www.he.net | 510-580-4126
> > > *--------------------------------------------------->>
> > > 
> > > 
> > > 
> > 
> > > _______________________________________________
> > > foundry-nsp mailing list
> > > foundry-nsp at puck.nether.net
> > > http://puck.nether.net/mailman/listinfo/foundry-nsp
> > 
> 
> 
> _______________________________________________
> foundry-nsp mailing list
> foundry-nsp at puck.nether.net
> http://puck.nether.net/mailman/listinfo/foundry-nsp
> 
_______________________________________________
foundry-nsp mailing list
foundry-nsp at puck.nether.net
http://puck.nether.net/mailman/listinfo/foundry-nsp

More information about the foundry-nsp mailing list