-- Jared Mauch <jared@puck.nether.net> wrote:
On Fri, Jul 21, 2006 at 02:42:04PM +0200, Fredy Kuenzler wrote:
Valdis.Kletnieks@vt.edu schrieb:
On Fri, 21 Jul 2006 09:51:33 +0200, Fredy Kuenzler said:
Prefixes Change ASnum AS Description 3263 0->3263 AS4151 USDA-1 - USDA so I wonder what's wrong with them.
I'm not sure which is more weird - a jump of over 3K routes, or the fact that the starting point is zero....
Just to make it clear: AS4151 was 9 month ago. Now we see history again with new actors. (I guess the actual increase was done by various
ASN of
RENATER).
I wonder why aggregating is that difficult.
It's not, people are just lazy and since "nobody owns the internet man", or maybe "it's all a bunch of tubes" there's nobody to force people to be good actors. Perhaps it's time to bring back the old /19 filters that were started by sprint & such.
I was just thinking the same thing. :-) - ferg -- "Fergie", a.k.a. Paul Ferguson Engineering Architecture for the Internet fergdawg(at)netzero.net ferg's tech blog: http://fergdawg.blogspot.com/
On Fri, 21 Jul 2006, Fergie wrote:
to be good actors. Perhaps it's time to bring back the old /19 filters that were started by sprint & such.
I was just thinking the same thing. :-)
Maybe with a central feed ala the bogons, where those clueful enough can get their smaller blocks punched through.... --- david raistrick http://www.netmeister.org/news/learn2quote.html drais@atlasta.net http://www.expita.com/nomime.html
On Fri, 21 Jul 2006, Fergie wrote:
It's not, people are just lazy and since "nobody owns the internet man", or maybe "it's all a bunch of tubes" there's nobody to force people to be good actors. Perhaps it's time to bring back the old /19 filters that were started by sprint & such.
I was just thinking the same thing. :-)
As we push closer to the ipv4 route table limits of cisco's 6500/7600 series (with anything less than Sup720-3bxl), I suspect lots of networks are going to be forced to start doing some sort of filtering of routes beyond just refusing >24-bit networks or cisco's going to sell a lot more Sup720-3bxl's, FAN2 trays, and power supplies in the next year or two. ---------------------------------------------------------------------- Jon Lewis | I route Senior Network Engineer | therefore you are Atlantic Net | _________ http://www.lewis.org/~jlewis/pgp for PGP public key_________
On Fri, 21 Jul 2006 13:59:35 EDT, Jon Lewis said:
As we push closer to the ipv4 route table limits of cisco's 6500/7600 series (with anything less than Sup720-3bxl), I suspect lots of networks are going to be forced to start doing some sort of filtering of routes beyond just refusing >24-bit networks or cisco's going to sell a lot more Sup720-3bxl's, FAN2 trays, and power supplies in the next year or two.
The big question is, of course, whether to upgrade a 6500 and keep it on life support, or bite the bullet and go for a whole new box. How much time a -3bxl and careful filtering will buy you does depend heavily on where in the Internet you are - but I'm willing to bet that a good number of sites will go for the fork lift upgrade because there are *other* pressing things coming up that the 6500 won't do either. Remember - it only takes *one* truly mission-critical "must do" that a 6500 can't, and it's off to a less stressful corner of your network for that long slide into retirement (on the other hand, I'm sure in 2016, there will *still* be 6500's installed, just like I'm sure there's still 1996-vintage gear still out there now...) I'll concede that Jon is at least partially right - *somebody* is going to be selling gear... ;)
On Fri, 21 Jul 2006 Valdis.Kletnieks@vt.edu wrote:
The big question is, of course, whether to upgrade a 6500 and keep it on life support, or bite the bullet and go for a whole new box. How much time a -3bxl and careful filtering will buy you does depend heavily on where in the Internet you are - but I'm willing to bet that a good number of sites will go for the fork lift upgrade because there are *other* pressing things coming up that the 6500 won't do either.
With a 3bxl, you won't need careful filtering. All the lower Sups top out at or slightly below 256k routes. IIRC, the 3bxl claims to support 1M ipv4 routes. Anyone else care to guess at how far off 235k routes is?
I'll concede that Jon is at least partially right - *somebody* is going to be selling gear... ;)
Yeah...I posted recently on cisco-nsp that I think cisco's making a huge mistake not producing a Sup32-3bxl. When the Sup2 can't cope with "full routes" anymore, I suspect the Sup720-3bxl will already have been obsoleted by some higher end Sup. Then networks that would have bought Sup32-3bxl's for the route capacity, and don't really need the traffic capacity of the Sup720-3bxl will snap up Sup720-3bxl (and the required fan2s and power supplies) off the used market while bigger/richer networks upgrade to the Sup720-3bxl replacement. ---------------------------------------------------------------------- Jon Lewis | I route Senior Network Engineer | therefore you are Atlantic Net | _________ http://www.lewis.org/~jlewis/pgp for PGP public key_________
On Fri, Jul 21, 2006 at 01:59:35PM -0400, Jon Lewis wrote:
As we push closer to the ipv4 route table limits of cisco's 6500/7600 series (with anything less than Sup720-3bxl), I suspect lots of networks are going to be forced to start doing some sort of filtering of routes beyond just refusing >24-bit networks or cisco's going to sell a lot more Sup720-3bxl's, FAN2 trays, and power supplies in the next year or two.
It should be noted that the sup720-3a/3b tcam allocations (cef maximum-routes) only gives 190k of the 256k theoretical max to IPv6 routes by default. Anyone running a sup720 non-3bxl who has not manually adjusted those cef maximum-routes is either blowing up or about to blow up any day now, depending on how many internal routes they have and how much filtering their upstreams are doing. Of course this isn't a new problem, many of us are still running old Foundry ironcore boxes with 700+ day uptimes and software so old it came with 120k or 140k default maximum routes. Similiarly, cam aggregation on such platforms (without enough cam to hold even close to enough routes for a full table) is nothing new either. Cisco could easily implement cam aggregation where they do not install a cef route entry if there is a covering less-specific route pointing to the same nexthop(s). It is hardly rocket science, and could extend the life of a 256k route tcam platform for many years to come. But clearly Cisco would rather just sell 3bxl's. :) -- Richard A Steenbergen <ras@e-gerbil.net> http://www.e-gerbil.net/ras GPG Key ID: 0xF8B12CBC (7535 7F59 8204 ED1F CC1C 53AF 4C41 5ECA F8B1 2CBC)
participants (5)
-
david raistrick -
Fergie -
Jon Lewis -
Richard A Steenbergen -
Valdis.Kletnieks＠vt.edu