We actually had to upgrade the DRAM in our Engine 2 cards recently just because of this. We take about 5 full BGP feeds plus the normal internal stuff, and the cards just couldn't hold the TCAM. We went from 128Mb to 256Mb, and now we're sitting pretty:
ca-la2-core-c12016#show ip cef res Hardware resource allocation status summary Green (Normal), Yellow (Caution) Red (Alarm) Slot HW Resource Name Util Alert 0 E2_Rx_PLU 23 G 0 E2_Rx_TLU 24 G 10 E2_Rx_PLU 23 G 10 E2_Rx_TLU 24 G Our GRP-Bs with 512Mb of ram on the same box run with about 100Mb free. I would consider this setup would be the mininum "useful" setup that doesn't require fancy filter games to keep TCAM/table size down. We also have no numbers for anything more fancy than Engine 2. --Doug On 10/29/07, John van Oppen <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > I needed an answer to this question too and from what I can tell the > answer is as follows: > > The GRP-B is just a route processor, so the only limitation is ram and > CPU speed... assuming convergence times are not an issue, once it runs > out of ram, you have a problem... As of today, I am running about 170 > MB free on my GRP-B with the most bgp peers (2 full routes + 80 peers + > 5 customers + 8 internal routers). > > Engine0 linecards are not TCAM limited as they run in software, so when > the card runs out of ram, that is the limit of its TCAM. We have 256 > MB of ram on all our engine0 cards, they run with about 100 MB of free > ram as of today. > > Engine2 cards (three port gigE) for example have already run out of TCAM > if they are running ACLs or MPLS. With a straight IPv4 table and no > ACLs ours seem to run right at 30% utilization (show ip cef resource). > The newer cards have larger TCAMs. > > > If I missed anything, please add it... Then newer cards will have to be > commented-on by others as we don't have any data as our network is > mostly the older cards. > > > > John van Oppen > Spectrum Networks LLC > 206.973.8302 (Direct) > 206.973.8300 (main office) > > > -----Original Message----- > From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] > [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of Drew Weaver > Sent: Monday, October 29, 2007 9:40 AM > To: [email protected] > Subject: [c-nsp] Understanding TCAM/route limitations in the GSR.. > > Hi, I know I've been quite the pest as of late ;-) I have been > recently scouring the net and Cisco's site seeking information on TCAM > (or route memory) limitations on the GRP-B (or the GSR) in general. Do > they suffer from the same limitations (worse, or better?) with TCAM > exhaustion from routes that the 7600/6500 series does? Does anyone know > what the "shelf-life" of a GRP-B would be? I haven't really been able to > find any hard data on it. > > Thanks, > -Drew > > _______________________________________________ > cisco-nsp mailing list [email protected] > https://puck.nether.net/mailman/listinfo/cisco-nsp > archive at http://puck.nether.net/pipermail/cisco-nsp/ > _______________________________________________ > cisco-nsp mailing list [email protected] > https://puck.nether.net/mailman/listinfo/cisco-nsp > archive at http://puck.nether.net/pipermail/cisco-nsp/ > _______________________________________________ cisco-nsp mailing list [email protected] https://puck.nether.net/mailman/listinfo/cisco-nsp archive at http://puck.nether.net/pipermail/cisco-nsp/
