yah. That is not cause of performance issues, and works pretty well even with more than 300k BGP prefixes summary.The number of VPNs is requered because of the platform is play centralized services VPN role. How can i increase just a MAX value of total number of rdomains if that is defined as unsigned integer 8 bytes only in the whole rdomain/socket environment?Or im missing something?
Птн 01 Фев 2013 14:21:27 +0400, Claudio Jeker написал: On Fri, Feb 01, 2013 at 08:55:38AM +0400, def wrote: > Hi, Claudio > So, i have about 5000 VRF inside the BGP AS, and i exchenge all of that VPNs > with bgpd via vpnv4 address-family so i can only couple the 255 VRF with > binding to mpe interfaces. All of these have unique RD and RT.And i need a > way to have at least allowed size of rdomain id between the 2^8 and 2^16 > You can increase the define to something like 5000 but I wonder on what systems you want to have that many VRFs running at the same time. The more rtabels you run the more memory is used but in general the number of tables should (hopefully) not cause performance degradation. Currently it is not possible to remove created rtables so keep that in mind. -- :wq Claudio > ?????? 01 ?????? 2013 00:12:48 +0400, Claudio Jeker ??????????????: > On Wed, Jan 30, 2013 at 09:11:58AM +0400, def wrote: > > > I very widely using functionality of rdomains and found out, that > > > TABLEID limit is quite small. Whether it is possible to increase the > > > size to be at least 2^32 as is in RFCs 4364 and 4360 which states that > > > RD and BGP target extended community fields Assigned number subfield and > > > Local Administrator sub-field are 4 octets? > > The rtableid are assigned independent of any RD mapping in bgpd. They are > > assigned by the operator and trust me, you can not have 2^32 rtableids in > > a system. There should be no one-to-one mapping of rtableids to RD. > > -- > :wq Claudio
