Re: Getting pretty close to default IPv4 route maximum for 6500/7600 routers.
On 5/6/2014 10:39 AM, Drew Weaver wrote:
Just something to think about before it becomes a story the community talks about for the next decade.
Like we have for the last two? -- Requiescas in pace o email Two identifying characteristics of System Administrators: Ex turpi causa non oritur actio Infallibility, and the ability to learn from their mistakes. (Adapted from Stephen Pinker)
I¹m really surprised that most people have not hit this limit already, especially on the 9K¹s, as it seems Cisco has some fuzzy math when it comes to the 512K limit. Also make sure you have spare cards when you reload after changing the scaling, those old cards don¹t always like to come back. On 5/6/14, 7:01 PM, "Larry Sheldon" <LarrySheldon@cox.net> wrote:
On 5/6/2014 10:39 AM, Drew Weaver wrote:
Just something to think about before it becomes a story the community talks about for the next decade.
Like we have for the last two?
-- Requiescas in pace o email Two identifying characteristics of System Administrators: Ex turpi causa non oritur actio Infallibility, and the ability to learn from their mistakes. (Adapted from Stephen Pinker)
The information transmitted is intended only for the person or entity to which it is addressed and may contain confidential and/or privileged material. Any review, retransmission, dissemination or other use of, or taking of any action in reliance upon, this information by persons or entities other than the intended recipient is prohibited. If you receive this in error, please contact the sender and destroy any copies of this document.
Do the ASR1k routers have this issue as well? I searched around but couldn't find any information. ---------- Forwarded message ---------- From: Irwin, Kevin <Kevin.Irwin@cinbell.com> Date: Wed, May 7, 2014 at 10:39 AM Subject: Re: Getting pretty close to default IPv4 route maximum for 6500/7600 routers. To: "nanog@nanog.org" <nanog@nanog.org> I¹m really surprised that most people have not hit this limit already, especially on the 9K¹s, as it seems Cisco has some fuzzy math when it comes to the 512K limit. Also make sure you have spare cards when you reload after changing the scaling, those old cards don¹t always like to come back. On 5/6/14, 7:01 PM, "Larry Sheldon" <LarrySheldon@cox.net> wrote:
On 5/6/2014 10:39 AM, Drew Weaver wrote:
Just something to think about before it becomes a story the community talks about for the next decade.
Like we have for the last two?
-- Requiescas in pace o email Two identifying characteristics of System Administrators: Ex turpi causa non oritur actio Infallibility, and the ability to learn from their mistakes. (Adapted from Stephen Pinker)
The information transmitted is intended only for the person or entity to which it is addressed and may contain confidential and/or privileged material. Any review, retransmission, dissemination or other use of, or taking of any action in reliance upon, this information by persons or entities other than the intended recipient is prohibited. If you receive this in error, please contact the sender and destroy any copies of this document.
Do the ASR1k routers have this issue as well? I searched around but couldn't find any information.
Not really (according to Cisco) - ESP10 - 1,000,000 IPv4 or 500,000 IPv6 routes ESP20 - 4,000,000 IPv4 or 4,000,000 IPv6 routes ESP40 - 4,000,000 IPv4 or 4,000,000 IPv6 routes ESP100-4,000,000 IPv4 or 4,000,000 IPv6 routes (hardware is capable of 8,000,000 routes) ESP200-4,000,000 IPv4 or 4,000,000 IPv6 routes
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 streams and you are using the route tables to do your route selection then great, but that means you need at least 1M capability now, and really 2+ should be your target. In my experience people running a full table on a small capability box normally don't actually need to carry it, or they just need a bigger box.
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 70952240 bytes of memory 29 multipath network entries and 58 multipath paths -----Original Message----- From: NANOG [mailto:nanog-bounces@nanog.org] On Behalf Of Tony Wicks Sent: Tuesday, June 10, 2014 6:45 PM To: 'nanog' Subject: RE: Getting pretty close to default IPv4 route maximum for 6500/7600 routers. 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 streams and you are using the route tables to do your route selection then great, but that means you need at least 1M capability now, and really 2+ should be your target. In my experience people running a full table on a small capability box normally don't actually need to carry it, or they just need a bigger box.
www.pssclabs.com
On May 7, 2014, at 6:47 PM, "Shawn L" <shawnl@up.net> wrote:
Do the ASR1k routers have this issue as well? I searched around but couldn't find any information.
---------- Forwarded message ---------- From: Irwin, Kevin <Kevin.Irwin@cinbell.com> Date: Wed, May 7, 2014 at 10:39 AM Subject: Re: Getting pretty close to default IPv4 route maximum for 6500/7600 routers. To: "nanog@nanog.org" <nanog@nanog.org>
I¹m really surprised that most people have not hit this limit already, especially on the 9K¹s, as it seems Cisco has some fuzzy math when it comes to the 512K limit.
Also make sure you have spare cards when you reload after changing the scaling, those old cards don¹t always like to come back.
On 5/6/14, 7:01 PM, "Larry Sheldon" <LarrySheldon@cox.net> wrote:
On 5/6/2014 10:39 AM, Drew Weaver wrote:
Just something to think about before it becomes a story the community talks about for the next decade.
Like we have for the last two?
-- Requiescas in pace o email Two identifying characteristics of System Administrators: Ex turpi causa non oritur actio Infallibility, and the ability to learn from their mistakes. (Adapted from Stephen Pinker)
The information transmitted is intended only for the person or entity to which it is addressed and may contain confidential and/or privileged material. Any review, retransmission, dissemination or other use of, or taking of any action in reliance upon, this information by persons or entities other than the intended recipient is prohibited. If you receive this in error, please contact the sender and destroy any copies of this document.
ASR1k doesn't have fixed TCAM like the 6500 and has a little more wiggle room, but it depends on the ESP you have installed. For example ESP 20 supports around 1,000,000 routes. http://www.cisco.com/c/en/us/products/collateral/routers/asr-1000-series-agg... -Pete On Wed, May 7, 2014 at 6:45 PM, Shawn L <shawnl@up.net> wrote:
Do the ASR1k routers have this issue as well? I searched around but couldn't find any information.
---------- Forwarded message ---------- From: Irwin, Kevin <Kevin.Irwin@cinbell.com> Date: Wed, May 7, 2014 at 10:39 AM Subject: Re: Getting pretty close to default IPv4 route maximum for 6500/7600 routers. To: "nanog@nanog.org" <nanog@nanog.org>
I¹m really surprised that most people have not hit this limit already, especially on the 9K¹s, as it seems Cisco has some fuzzy math when it comes to the 512K limit.
Also make sure you have spare cards when you reload after changing the scaling, those old cards don¹t always like to come back.
On 5/6/14, 7:01 PM, "Larry Sheldon" <LarrySheldon@cox.net> wrote:
On 5/6/2014 10:39 AM, Drew Weaver wrote:
Just something to think about before it becomes a story the community talks about for the next decade.
Like we have for the last two?
-- Requiescas in pace o email Two identifying characteristics of System Administrators: Ex turpi causa non oritur actio Infallibility, and the ability to learn from their mistakes. (Adapted from Stephen Pinker)
The information transmitted is intended only for the person or entity to which it is addressed and may contain confidential and/or privileged material. Any review, retransmission, dissemination or other use of, or taking of any action in reliance upon, this information by persons or entities other than the intended recipient is prohibited. If you receive this in error, please contact the sender and destroy any copies of this document.
Asr1002-f may have problem as it limited to 512k iirc
On 08 мая 2014 г., at 2:45, Shawn L <shawnl@up.net> wrote:
Do the ASR1k routers have this issue as well? I searched around but couldn't find any information.
---------- Forwarded message ---------- From: Irwin, Kevin <Kevin.Irwin@cinbell.com> Date: Wed, May 7, 2014 at 10:39 AM Subject: Re: Getting pretty close to default IPv4 route maximum for 6500/7600 routers. To: "nanog@nanog.org" <nanog@nanog.org>
I¹m really surprised that most people have not hit this limit already, especially on the 9K¹s, as it seems Cisco has some fuzzy math when it comes to the 512K limit.
Also make sure you have spare cards when you reload after changing the scaling, those old cards don¹t always like to come back.
On 5/6/14, 7:01 PM, "Larry Sheldon" <LarrySheldon@cox.net> wrote:
On 5/6/2014 10:39 AM, Drew Weaver wrote:
Just something to think about before it becomes a story the community talks about for the next decade.
Like we have for the last two?
-- Requiescas in pace o email Two identifying characteristics of System Administrators: Ex turpi causa non oritur actio Infallibility, and the ability to learn from their mistakes. (Adapted from Stephen Pinker)
The information transmitted is intended only for the person or entity to which it is addressed and may contain confidential and/or privileged material. Any review, retransmission, dissemination or other use of, or taking of any action in reliance upon, this information by persons or entities other than the intended recipient is prohibited. If you receive this in error, please contact the sender and destroy any copies of this document.
It depends, you can put in a table-map to stop the routes from being installed into the FIB/RIB on an ASR-1K with 2GB of RAM you can then have up to 2 million IPv4 routes. Alternatively, if you are not using your ASR-1k to forward traffic, I think you could also just turn off CEF and have the same result. On 5/8/14, 2:15 AM, "Nikolay Shopik" <shopik@inblock.ru> wrote:
Asr1002-f may have problem as it limited to 512k iirc
On 08 мая 2014 г., at 2:45, Shawn L <shawnl@up.net> wrote:
Do the ASR1k routers have this issue as well? I searched around but couldn't find any information.
---------- Forwarded message ---------- From: Irwin, Kevin <Kevin.Irwin@cinbell.com> Date: Wed, May 7, 2014 at 10:39 AM Subject: Re: Getting pretty close to default IPv4 route maximum for 6500/7600 routers. To: "nanog@nanog.org" <nanog@nanog.org>
I¹m really surprised that most people have not hit this limit already, especially on the 9K¹s, as it seems Cisco has some fuzzy math when it comes to the 512K limit.
Also make sure you have spare cards when you reload after changing the scaling, those old cards don¹t always like to come back.
On 5/6/14, 7:01 PM, "Larry Sheldon" <LarrySheldon@cox.net> wrote:
On 5/6/2014 10:39 AM, Drew Weaver wrote:
Just something to think about before it becomes a story the community talks about for the next decade.
Like we have for the last two?
-- Requiescas in pace o email Two identifying characteristics of System Administrators: Ex turpi causa non oritur actio Infallibility, and the ability to learn from their mistakes. (Adapted from Stephen Pinker)
The information transmitted is intended only for the person or entity to which it is addressed and may contain confidential and/or privileged material. Any review, retransmission, dissemination or other use of, or taking of any action in reliance upon, this information by persons or entities other than the intended recipient is prohibited. If you receive this in error, please contact the sender and destroy any copies of this document.
The information transmitted is intended only for the person or entity to which it is addressed and may contain confidential and/or privileged material. Any review, retransmission, dissemination or other use of, or taking of any action in reliance upon, this information by persons or entities other than the intended recipient is prohibited. If you receive this in error, please contact the sender and destroy any copies of this document.
On Thursday, May 08, 2014 04:45:09 PM Irwin, Kevin wrote:
It depends, you can put in a table-map to stop the routes from being installed into the FIB/RIB on an ASR-1K with 2GB of RAM you can then have up to 2 million IPv4 routes.
Helpful only if you don't want to forward traffic through the box, in which case running IOS XE on a VM on a server is a more lasting idea :-). Mark.
I know most people have problems with 2 bgp feeds and 4GB RAM on ASR1002-F (as it max installable memory). So I doubt about 2M routes with 2GB RAM. On 08.05.2014 18:45, Irwin, Kevin wrote:
on an ASR-1K with 2GB of RAM you can then have up to 2 million IPv4 routes
On Thursday, May 08, 2014 05:29:08 PM Nikolay Shopik wrote:
I know most people have problems with 2 bgp feeds and 4GB RAM on ASR1002-F (as it max installable memory). So I doubt about 2M routes with 2GB RAM.
I've never ran the ASR1002-F, but I know some other ASR1000 platforms consume half the memory just for the IOS image upon boot. This makes running a second instance of IOSd on boxes that have a single RP a sure way to lead to a crash when the same box is running BGP (happened to me once, 2nd IOSd never again). Mark.
I could never get an definitive answer out of TAC or my account team, but I believe the ASR1002 w/ESP5 is also affected. On Thu, May 8, 2014 at 1:15 AM, Nikolay Shopik <shopik@inblock.ru> wrote:
Asr1002-f may have problem as it limited to 512k iirc
On 08 мая 2014 г., at 2:45, Shawn L <shawnl@up.net> wrote:
Do the ASR1k routers have this issue as well? I searched around but couldn't find any information.
---------- Forwarded message ---------- From: Irwin, Kevin <Kevin.Irwin@cinbell.com> Date: Wed, May 7, 2014 at 10:39 AM Subject: Re: Getting pretty close to default IPv4 route maximum for 6500/7600 routers. To: "nanog@nanog.org" <nanog@nanog.org>
I¹m really surprised that most people have not hit this limit already, especially on the 9K¹s, as it seems Cisco has some fuzzy math when it comes to the 512K limit.
Also make sure you have spare cards when you reload after changing the scaling, those old cards don¹t always like to come back.
On 5/6/14, 7:01 PM, "Larry Sheldon" <LarrySheldon@cox.net> wrote:
On 5/6/2014 10:39 AM, Drew Weaver wrote:
Just something to think about before it becomes a story the community talks about for the next decade.
Like we have for the last two?
-- Requiescas in pace o email Two identifying characteristics of System Administrators: Ex turpi causa non oritur actio Infallibility, and the ability to learn from their mistakes. (Adapted from Stephen Pinker)
The information transmitted is intended only for the person or entity to which it is addressed and may contain confidential and/or privileged material. Any review, retransmission, dissemination or other use of, or taking of any action in reliance upon, this information by persons or entities other than the intended recipient is prohibited. If you receive this in error, please contact the sender and destroy any copies of this document.
The datasheet for the ESP-5 states support for 500,000 IPv4 Prefixes. The TCAM on the ASR1k is different from 6500 and can't be adjusted in the same fashion. You'd have to filter or upgrade the ESP. http://www.cisco.com/c/en/us/products/collateral/routers/asr-1000-series-agg... "Table 3") On Thu, May 8, 2014 at 10:55 AM, Michael Dikkema <mdikkema@gmail.com> wrote:
I could never get an definitive answer out of TAC or my account team, but I believe the ASR1002 w/ESP5 is also affected.
On Thu, May 8, 2014 at 1:15 AM, Nikolay Shopik <shopik@inblock.ru> wrote:
Asr1002-f may have problem as it limited to 512k iirc
On 08 мая 2014 г., at 2:45, Shawn L <shawnl@up.net> wrote:
Do the ASR1k routers have this issue as well? I searched around but couldn't find any information.
---------- Forwarded message ---------- From: Irwin, Kevin <Kevin.Irwin@cinbell.com> Date: Wed, May 7, 2014 at 10:39 AM Subject: Re: Getting pretty close to default IPv4 route maximum for 6500/7600 routers. To: "nanog@nanog.org" <nanog@nanog.org>
I¹m really surprised that most people have not hit this limit already, especially on the 9K¹s, as it seems Cisco has some fuzzy math when it comes to the 512K limit.
Also make sure you have spare cards when you reload after changing the scaling, those old cards don¹t always like to come back.
On 5/6/14, 7:01 PM, "Larry Sheldon" <LarrySheldon@cox.net> wrote:
On 5/6/2014 10:39 AM, Drew Weaver wrote:
Just something to think about before it becomes a story the community talks about for the next decade.
Like we have for the last two?
-- Requiescas in pace o email Two identifying characteristics of System Administrators: Ex turpi causa non oritur actio Infallibility, and the ability to learn from their mistakes. (Adapted from Stephen Pinker)
The information transmitted is intended only for the person or entity to which it is addressed and may contain confidential and/or privileged material. Any review, retransmission, dissemination or other use of, or taking of any action in reliance upon, this information by persons or entities other than the intended recipient is prohibited. If you receive this in error, please contact the sender and destroy any copies of this document.
From: NANOG [mailto:nanog-bounces@nanog.org] On Behalf Of Irwin, Kevin Sent: Wednesday, May 07, 2014 4:39 PM I¹m really surprised that most people have not hit this limit already, especially on the 9K¹s, as it seems Cisco has some fuzzy math when it comes to the 512K limit.
I would actually be very surprised if someone would hit the 512K limit on ASRs. With 6500/7600 I can understand they've been around for ages and no one anticipated the 512k limit back then. But ASRs? When these where bough engineers must have known that 512k is not going to be enough. I guess one does some reading and tweaking before installing a box as a PE or Internet Edge. adam
On May 9, 2014, at 2:48 PM, Vitkovský Adam <adam.vitkovsky@swan.sk> wrote:
With 6500/7600 I can understand they've been around for ages and no one anticipated the 512k limit back then.
Actually, it *was* anticipated. It's just that those who designed the ASIC didn't necessarily envision that it would still be in service, having gone through successive additional minor variations, for quite so long. ----------------------------------------------------------------------- Roland Dobbins <rdobbins@arbor.net> // <http://www.arbornetworks.com> Luck is the residue of opportunity and design. -- John Milton
participants (12)
-
Alex Lesser -
Dobbins, Roland -
Irwin, Kevin -
John van Oppen -
Larry Sheldon -
Mark Tinka -
Michael Dikkema -
Nikolay Shopik -
Pete Lumbis -
Shawn L -
Tony Wicks -
Vitkovský Adam