On Wed, 2008-01-09 at 11:28 +0100, Gert Doering wrote: Hi, > On Wed, Jan 09, 2008 at 09:59:21AM +0100, Mohacsi Janos wrote: > > We are using Sup32 with 12.2(18)SXF11 for more than 2.5 months without a > > problem (Earlier we used 12.2(18)SXF10) - of course without full routing > > table.... > > Have you been hit by "more prefixes in the RIB than would fit into TCAM"?
Hum, why Cisco don't create a software feature for be able to store aggragated routes in the TCAM ? <dream> In the BGP routing table: Prefix 192.168.0.0/24 AS65526 Prefix 192.168.1.0/24 AS65526 (but not 192.168.0.0/23) so in the TCAM, we have: Route 192.168.0.0/24 to x Route 192.168.1.0/24 to x # conf t # tcam route-aggregation <- the magic command after this command, in the TCAM, we have: Route 192.168.0.0/23 to x but in the BGP routing table we have still: Prefix 192.168.0.0/24 AS65526 Prefix 192.168.1.0/24 AS65526 (but not 192.168.0.0/23) </dream> Many /24 are not aggregated but have the same routing policy. -- [REDACTED] _______________________________________________ cisco-nsp mailing list [email protected] https://puck.nether.net/mailman/listinfo/cisco-nsp archive at http://puck.nether.net/pipermail/cisco-nsp/
