On (2014-06-10 12:39 -0500), Blake Hudson wrote:
> Please correct me if I'm wrong, but if the BGP table contains ~500k
> prefixes, which are then summarized into ~300k routes (RIB), and the FIB
> contains only the "best path" entries from the RIB, wouldn't the FIB be at
> or below 300k?
There is
FIB is not the same as RIB...
Perfectly happy 6509, many paths, only one full table in the FIB:
BGP router identifier XXX , local AS number 11404
BGP table version is 40916063, main routing table version 40916063
494649 network entries using 71229456 bytes of memory
886903 path entries using 7095
My 2c:
The obvious thing for me is if people are running a full ipv4 route table on a
box only just capable of handling one single table of that size, then really
now is the time to asses if you really need to hold that table or just drop to
default +internal+peers. If you have multiple up strea
as many people will be hitting the wall on all sorts of platforms,
perhaps it's wiki time. or have i just missed it?
randy
Today we began an upgrade to the site/tool located at pc.nanog.org, known
as the pc tool, which is designed to allow the community to propose talks
for the next NANOG. The new site has some of the latest fads in web 2.0 web
design and buzzwords, for instance we've decided to use a programming
langu
On Tue, Jun 10, 2014 at 11:36 AM, Blake Hudson wrote:
>
> joel jaeggli wrote the following on 6/10/2014 1:10 PM:
>
> On 6/10/14, 10:39 AM, Blake Hudson wrote:
>>
>>> Łukasz Bromirski wrote the following on 6/10/2014 12:15 PM:
>>>
Hi Blake,
On 10 Jun 2014, at 19:04, Blake Hudson w
On Tuesday, June 10, 2014 08:07:35 PM Łukasz Bromirski
wrote:
> Because you need to do your own summarization or ask your
> upstreams to do it for you. Until then, most of transit
> accepts loosely prefixes in exact length but also longer
> (i.e. /24 but also both /25s).
A couple of major servi
joel jaeggli wrote the following on 6/10/2014 1:10 PM:
On 6/10/14, 10:39 AM, Blake Hudson wrote:
Łukasz Bromirski wrote the following on 6/10/2014 12:15 PM:
Hi Blake,
On 10 Jun 2014, at 19:04, Blake Hudson wrote:
In this case, does the 512k limit of the 6500/7600 refer to the RIB
or the FI
On 6/10/14, 10:39 AM, Blake Hudson wrote:
>
> Łukasz Bromirski wrote the following on 6/10/2014 12:15 PM:
>> Hi Blake,
>>
>> On 10 Jun 2014, at 19:04, Blake Hudson wrote:
>>
>>> In this case, does the 512k limit of the 6500/7600 refer to the RIB
>>> or the FIB? And does it even matter since the B
On 10 Jun 2014, at 19:39, Blake Hudson wrote:
>> And yes, you’re right - no matter how many neighbors you have, the FIB
>> will only contain best paths, so it will be closer to 500k entries in
>> total rather than N times number of neighbours.
> Please correct me if I'm wrong, but if the BGP tabl
Hello,
On 10.6.2014 19:04, Blake Hudson wrote:
> I haven't seen anyone bring up this point yet, but I feel like I'm
> missing something...
> I receive a full BGP table from several providers. They send me ~490k
> *prefixes* each. However, my router shows ~332k *subnets* in the routing
> table. As I
Łukasz Bromirski wrote the following on 6/10/2014 12:15 PM:
Hi Blake,
On 10 Jun 2014, at 19:04, Blake Hudson wrote:
In this case, does the 512k limit of the 6500/7600 refer to the RIB or the FIB?
And does it even matter since the BGP prefix table can automatically be reduced
to ~300k route
On 6/10/14, 10:15 AM, Łukasz Bromirski wrote:
> Hi Blake,
>
> On 10 Jun 2014, at 19:04, Blake Hudson wrote:
>
>> In this case, does the 512k limit of the 6500/7600 refer to the RIB or the
>> FIB? And does it even matter since the BGP prefix table can automatically be
>> reduced to ~300k routes
Hi Blake,
On 10 Jun 2014, at 19:04, Blake Hudson wrote:
> In this case, does the 512k limit of the 6500/7600 refer to the RIB or the
> FIB? And does it even matter since the BGP prefix table can automatically be
> reduced to ~300k routes?
Te 512k limit refers to FIB in the B/C (base) versions
I haven't seen anyone bring up this point yet, but I feel like I'm
missing something...
I receive a full BGP table from several providers. They send me ~490k
*prefixes* each. However, my router shows ~332k *subnets* in the routing
table. As I understand it, the BGP table contains duplicate inf
On Tue, Jun 10, 2014 at 12:57 AM, Robert Drake wrote:
>
>
> My guess is one of two things. Maybe they renumbered out of the /20 but
> left a VPN server up and haven't managed to migrate off it yet, but they
> have asked to return the block.. or, they forgot to pay their bill to ARIN
> and the
It has been just announced in LAC network operator mailing lists that the
LAC region just crossed the /10 boundary, triggering exhaustion policies
that now only allow assignments of /22 IP address blocks, either for
initial assignments or additional requests.
Next in line, ARIN region. Is February
On (2014-06-10 10:28 +), Bjoern A. Zeeb wrote:
> You mean it’s more likely people acquire/merge with other companies for IP
> space then go through transfer? https://www.arin.net/knowledge/statistics/
I mean that demand for IPv4 addresses will continue to foreseeable future, if
you are offe
On 10 Jun 2014, at 10:10 , Saku Ytti wrote:
> On (2014-06-10 09:41 +), Bjoern A. Zeeb wrote:
>
>> IPv4 addresses have little commercial value anymore and IPv6 is basically
>> free. The only people who still haven’t realised don’t have enough money to
>> spend on IPv4 to keep themselves al
On (2014-06-10 09:41 +), Bjoern A. Zeeb wrote:
> IPv4 addresses have little commercial value anymore and IPv6 is basically
> free. The only people who still haven’t realised don’t have enough money to
> spend on IPv4 to keep themselves alive for another decade.
Wishing how markets should b
On 10 Jun 2014, at 05:48 , Andrew Jones wrote:
> Even if the first numbers were correctly calculated, they don’t allow for
> further deaggregation of already advertised prefixes, which shouldn't be
> underestimated as the commercial value of each address increases...
IPv4 addresses have littl
Ah. I had to ³no mls cef max ip² and ³no mls def max mpls² for it to
share. They were previously adjusted separately.
:)
Thanks.
On 6/10/14, 3:12 AM, "John van Oppen" wrote:
>On the sup 720 they become unshared if you carve v4 away from the default
>separately, that is why I carve the other
On the sup 720 they become unshared if you carve v4 away from the default
separately, that is why I carve the other two instead.
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
24 matches
Mail list logo
