Hi, On Fri, Jun 03, 2016 at 08:50:50AM +0200, Patrick M. Hausen wrote: > Now that we are planning to replace our supervisor engines > (3BXL) with VSS capable ones (10G-3CXL) I'm pondering > to repartition TCAM for 768k IPv4 and 128k IPv6 and > to go back to full tables. > Of course monitoring the usage closely. ;-)
I'd stick to "only partial table" - while the XL TCAM is big enough for
"more", the CPU is still slow, and full BGP on that box is stretching
the limits quite a bit (we have a few still running with ~450k v4 routes,
and peer restarts do cause too much CPU load for my taste).
> What puzzles me is: how do vendors go about that in
> the long run? I have been using my search engine of
> least distrust to no avail. Which platforms offer vastly
> bigger TCAMs, like at least twofold, better an order
> of magnitude?
ASR9k goes to 4M prefix... plus incredibly fast BGP implementation.
It has other warts, of course, like "it's a router, so it has few ports
and those are expensive".
[..]
> Or can one get around those rather arbitrary hard limits
> completely? Is it possible to e.g. have a TCAM with timestamps
> associated to entries, so one can employ a TCAM as
> a route cache in LRU fashion and process-switch everything
> new/unknown?
It would certainly be possible. Would vendors be interested in spending
money to let you run their old and now cheap coming from the second-hand
market gear longer? Answer yourself :-)
gert
--
USENET is *not* the non-clickable part of WWW!
//www.muc.de/~gert/
Gert Doering - Munich, Germany [email protected]
fax: +49-89-35655025 [email protected]
signature.asc
Description: PGP signature
_______________________________________________ cisco-nsp mailing list [email protected] https://puck.nether.net/mailman/listinfo/cisco-nsp archive at http://puck.nether.net/pipermail/cisco-nsp/
