The doc on how to adjust the 6500/7600 TCAM space was just published. http://www.cisco.com/c/en/us/support/docs/switches/catalyst-6500-series-switches/117712-problemsolution-cat6500-00.html
On Tue, May 6, 2014 at 3:48 PM, Pete Lumbis <alum...@gmail.com> wrote: > There is currently a doc for the ASR9k. We're working on getting on for > 6500 as well. > > > http://www.cisco.com/c/en/us/support/docs/routers/asr-9000-series-aggregation-services-routers/116999-problem-line-card-00.html > > > > > On Tue, May 6, 2014 at 1:34 PM, <bedard.p...@gmail.com> wrote: > >> I would like to see Cisco send something out... >> >> -----Original Message----- >> From: "Drew Weaver" <drew.wea...@thenap.com> >> Sent: 5/6/2014 11:42 AM >> To: "'nanog@nanog.org'" <nanog@nanog.org> >> Subject: Getting pretty close to default IPv4 route maximum for >> 6500/7600routers. >> >> Hi all, >> >> I am wondering if maybe we should make some kind of concerted effort to >> remind folks about the IPv4 routing table inching closer and closer to the >> 512K route mark. >> >> We are at about 94/95% right now of 512K. >> >> For most of us, the 512K route mark is arbitrary but for a lot of folks >> who may still be running 6500/7600 or other routers which are by default >> configured to crash and burn after 512K routes; it may be a valuable public >> service. >> >> Even if you don't have this scenario in your network today; chances are >> you connect to someone who connects to someone who connects to someone >> (etc...) that does. >> >> In case anyone wants to check on a 6500, you can run: show platform >> hardware capacity pfc and then look under L3 Forwarding Resources. >> >> Just something to think about before it becomes a story the community >> talks about for the next decade. >> >> -Drew >> >> >
