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 <jlewis@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 <alumbis@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.phil@gmail.com> wrote:
I would like to see Cisco send something out...
-----Original Message----- From: "Drew Weaver" <drew.weaver@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