On the RSP720-10GE at least, it seems that IPv4 and MPLS are not shared. Am I correct or am I missing something?
FIB TCAM maximum routes : ======================= Current :- ------- IPv4 - 768k MPLS - 64k IPv6 + IP Multicast - 96k (default) Randy On 6/9/14, 3:27 PM, "John van Oppen" <jvanop...@spectrumnet.us> wrote: >It is generally much better to do the following: > >mls cef maximum-routes ipv6 90 >mls cef maximum-routes ip-multicast 1 > >This will leave v4 and mpls in one big pool, puts v6 to something useful >for quite a while and steals all of the multicast space which is not >really used on most deployments. > > >This gives us the following (which is pretty great for IP backbone >purposes in dual stack): > >#show mls cef maximum-routes >FIB TCAM maximum routes : >======================= >Current :- >------- > IPv4 + MPLS - 832k (default) > IPv6 - 90k > IP multicast - 1k > > >John > > >-----Original Message----- >From: NANOG [mailto:nanog-boun...@nanog.org] On Behalf Of Jon Lewis >Sent: Monday, June 09, 2014 12:10 PM >To: Pete Lumbis >Cc: nanog@nanog.org >Subject: Re: Getting pretty close to default IPv4 route maximum for >6500/7600routers. > >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-serie >> s-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-agg >>> regation-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: ÿÿ5/ÿÿ6/ÿÿ2014 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_________
