The IPv6 table will not be as big as the v4 table even after full acceptance. Given that most providers will be advertising a single /32 and then rest will be some /48 routes for multi-homed scenarios.
My router looks like this FIB TCAM maximum routes : ======================= Current :- ------- IPv4 - 600k MPLS - 32k IPv6 - 160k IP multicast - 32k Probably a little heavy on MPLS considering we dont use it. With the current level of exhaustion I dont think IPv4 will make it past 600k. We are currently seeing 520,000 routes. There are currently 107M IPs left globally. If those all went to /21's that would require 26,255 prefixes. If those all went to /22's that would require 52,510 prefixes. If those all went to /24's that would require 105,021 prefixes. So even the most conservative maximum should be no more than 626K On Mon, Jun 9, 2014 at 1:09 PM, Jon Lewis <jle...@lewis.org> wrote: > Why, in your example, do you bias the split so heavily toward IPv4 that > the router won't be able to handle a current full v6 table? I've been using > > > mls cef maximum-routes ip 768 > > which is probably still a little too liberal for IPv6 > > FIB TCAM maximum routes : > ======================= > Current :- > ------- > IPv4 - 768k > MPLS - 16k (default) > IPv6 + IP Multicast - 120k (default) > > given that a full v6 table is around 17k routes today. > > A more important question though is how many 6500/7600 routers will fully > survive the reload required to affect this change? I've lost a blade > (presumably to the bad memory issue) each time I've rebooted a 6500 to > apply this. > > > On Mon, 9 Jun 2014, Pete Lumbis wrote: > > 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: яя5/яя6/яя2014 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 >>>> >>>> >>>> >>> >> > ---------------------------------------------------------------------- > Jon Lewis, MCP :) | I route > | therefore you are > _________ http://www.lewis.org/~jlewis/pgp for PGP public key_________ > -- eSited LLC (701) 390-9638
