Has anyone ever utilized Unicast RPF (reverse path forwarding) to help mitigate this limitation on the SUP2's? I have also ran into the same limitation with our SUP2's (full BGP routing table, multiple peering sessions) and I have read that enabling Unicast RPF would help temporarily alleviate the TCAM memory being exhausted but in the long run a SUP7203BXL would be the best solution (unfortunately very pricy). Has anyone ever used uRPF to help correct this (for short term) or is the SUP7203BXL the only solution?
-Rich Rich Davies [EMAIL PROTECTED] On Thu, Sep 4, 2008 at 8:18 AM, Gert Doering <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > Hi, > > On Thu, Sep 04, 2008 at 02:05:54PM +0200, Florian Weimer wrote: > > Do you mean the filters based on RIR minimum allocations? From time > > to time, someone who should now better announces something smaller > > without the covering aggregate, > > So what? They do not want your traffic, obviously... > > gert > -- > USENET is *not* the non-clickable part of WWW! > // > www.muc.de/~gert/ <http://www.muc.de/%7Egert/> > Gert Doering - Munich, Germany > [EMAIL PROTECTED] > fax: +49-89-35655025 > [EMAIL PROTECTED] > > _______________________________________________ > 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/
