On 10/06/14 12:28, 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/
You have to consider that most likely there will be an increase in
de-aggregation due to:
- The RIR
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
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.
ent :-
>---
> 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 Lu
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 :-
---
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 :-
Just had to do this on my router last week. Came in a few mornings ago and
we were software switching, yay!
On Mon, Jun 9, 2014 at 12:30 PM, 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/cataly
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 wrote:
> There is currently a doc for the ASR9k. We're worki
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, wrote:
> I would like to see Cisco send someth
I would like to see Cisco send something out...
-Original Message-
From: "Drew Weaver"
Sent: 5/6/2014 11:42 AM
To: "'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 conce
15 matches
Mail list logo
