[j-nsp] syslog rsmon jtree problem

[Juniper Iber-x]

Jeff S Wheeler wrote:
> On Thu, 2009-03-05 at 12:58 +0100, Juniper Iber-x wrote:
>   
>> Hellos,
>>
>> This is what command showing:
>>
>> IPv4 Route Tables:
>> Index         Routes     Size(b)
>> --------  ----------  ----------
>> Default       275509    19548772
>> 1                  6         422
>> 2             275455    19544884
>>     
>
> See, you have two full routing tables.  One is the "Default" table,
> which is called inet.0, and you can see it has 275,509 routes.  You also
> have a logical router, with its own inet.0 table (presumably that's what
> it is called) which has 275,455 routes.
>
> This is very bad.  Some routes are not being installed into hardware.
> You may not notice a serious issue yet, especially if you have default
> routes configured in those tables; but which routes fail to be installed
> are not within your control.  Eventually, it will be a customer route,
> and instead of traffic being safely defaulted to one of your transit
> providers, it will ... be defaulted to transit ... instead of going to
> the customer.  And the problem will get worse, because the routing table
> grows every day.  This is why your configuration worked fine when it was
> initially setup, but as the routing table grew, you ran out of SSRAM.
>
> You have the following choices to fix the problem:
> 1) upgrade your router to SSB-E-16, which has more SSRAM
> 2) stop carrying full routes in both of those tables
> 3) use a default route + forwarding-table export policy to reduce the
> number of routes required in hardware while still forwarding correctly.
>
> Let me know if you need some per-hour help.  I have been doing #3 for
> about five years on purpose to allow my clients to do some interesting
> things with their networks.  That will definitely be cheaper than #1.
> Or if you don't need full routes in that logical-router, then just get
> rid of them.
>
> Hope this helps,
>   
But is very strange because we have another very similar topology and
this error doesn't show there.
The router where the error is showing doesn't run full-routing on its
logical-router...

It's possible to eliminate the logical-router.
Would that solve the problem?

Thanks in advance