[j-nsp] syslog rsmon jtree problem

[Juniper Iber-x]

Hello,

We have restarted the SSB and routing processes, such as BGP sessions,
is-is and so on, but the problem persists. We have decided to eliminate
the logical router and thus freeing up memory for adding new prefixes.

Thanks

Juniper Iber-x wrote:
> 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
>