Re: Getting pretty close to default IPv4 route maximum for 6500/7600routers.
On 10/06/14 12:28, Bjoern A. Zeeb wrote: You mean it’s more likely people acquire/merge with other companies for IP space then go through transfer? https://www.arin.net/knowledge/statistics/ You have to consider that most likely there will be an increase in de-aggregation due to: - The RIRs allocating smaller and smaller address space to every member, even smaller than a /24; - The RIRs allocating from smaller, fragmented allocations received from IANA. This means that it would also be possible - in theory - for example, to receive an allocation for a /22, sparse in two, non-contiguous, /23s (or a similar situation). - The holders of large parts of address space monetizing via transfers, thus fragmenting even more. Ciao! -- Max
Re: Getting pretty close to default IPv4 route maximum for 6500/7600routers.
On the RSP720-10GE at least, it seems that IPv4 and MPLS are not shared. Am I correct or am I missing something? FIB TCAM maximum routes : === Current :- --- IPv4- 768k MPLS- 64k IPv6 + IP Multicast - 96k (default) Randy On 6/9/14, 3:27 PM, John van Oppen jvanop...@spectrumnet.us wrote: It is generally much better to do the following: mls cef maximum-routes ipv6 90 mls cef maximum-routes ip-multicast 1 This will leave v4 and mpls in one big pool, puts v6 to something useful for quite a while and steals all of the multicast space which is not really used on most deployments. This gives us the following (which is pretty great for IP backbone purposes in dual stack): #show mls cef maximum-routes FIB TCAM maximum routes : === Current :- --- IPv4 + MPLS - 832k (default) IPv6- 90k IP multicast- 1k John -Original Message- From: NANOG [mailto:nanog-boun...@nanog.org] On Behalf Of Jon Lewis Sent: Monday, June 09, 2014 12:10 PM To: Pete Lumbis Cc: nanog@nanog.org Subject: Re: Getting pretty close to default IPv4 route maximum for 6500/7600routers. Why, in your example, do you bias the split so heavily toward IPv4 that the router won't be able to handle a current full v6 table? I've been using mls cef maximum-routes ip 768 which is probably still a little too liberal for IPv6 FIB TCAM maximum routes : === Current :- --- IPv4- 768k MPLS- 16k (default) IPv6 + IP Multicast - 120k (default) given that a full v6 table is around 17k routes today. A more important question though is how many 6500/7600 routers will fully survive the reload required to affect this change? I've lost a blade (presumably to the bad memory issue) each time I've rebooted a 6500 to apply this. On Mon, 9 Jun 2014, Pete Lumbis wrote: The doc on how to adjust the 6500/7600 TCAM space was just published. http://www.cisco.com/c/en/us/support/docs/switches/catalyst-6500-serie s-switches/117712-problemsolution-cat6500-00.html On Tue, May 6, 2014 at 3:48 PM, Pete Lumbis alum...@gmail.com wrote: There is currently a doc for the ASR9k. We're working on getting on for 6500 as well. http://www.cisco.com/c/en/us/support/docs/routers/asr-9000-series-agg regation-services-routers/116999-problem-line-card-00.html On Tue, May 6, 2014 at 1:34 PM, bedard.p...@gmail.com wrote: I would like to see Cisco send something out... -Original Message- From: Drew Weaver drew.wea...@thenap.com Sent: ÿÿ5/ÿÿ6/ÿÿ2014 11:42 AM To: 'nanog@nanog.org' nanog@nanog.org Subject: Getting pretty close to default IPv4 route maximum for 6500/7600routers. Hi all, I am wondering if maybe we should make some kind of concerted effort to remind folks about the IPv4 routing table inching closer and closer to the 512K route mark. We are at about 94/95% right now of 512K. For most of us, the 512K route mark is arbitrary but for a lot of folks who may still be running 6500/7600 or other routers which are by default configured to crash and burn after 512K routes; it may be a valuable public service. Even if you don't have this scenario in your network today; chances are you connect to someone who connects to someone who connects to someone (etc...) that does. In case anyone wants to check on a 6500, you can run: show platform hardware capacity pfc and then look under L3 Forwarding Resources. Just something to think about before it becomes a story the community talks about for the next decade. -Drew -- Jon Lewis, MCP :) | I route | therefore you are _ http://www.lewis.org/~jlewis/pgp for PGP public key_
RE: Getting pretty close to default IPv4 route maximum for 6500/7600routers.
On the sup 720 they become unshared if you carve v4 away from the default separately, that is why I carve the other two instead.
Re: Getting pretty close to default IPv4 route maximum for 6500/7600routers.
Ah. I had to ³no mls cef max ip² and ³no mls def max mpls² for it to share. They were previously adjusted separately. :) Thanks. On 6/10/14, 3:12 AM, John van Oppen jvanop...@spectrumnet.us wrote: On the sup 720 they become unshared if you carve v4 away from the default separately, that is why I carve the other two instead.
Re: Getting pretty close to default IPv4 route maximum for 6500/7600routers.
On 10 Jun 2014, at 05:48 , Andrew Jones a...@jonesy.com.au wrote: Even if the first numbers were correctly calculated, they don’t allow for further deaggregation of already advertised prefixes, which shouldn't be underestimated as the commercial value of each address increases... IPv4 addresses have little commercial value anymore and IPv6 is basically free. The only people who still haven’t realised don’t have enough money to spend on IPv4 to keep themselves alive for another decade. — Bjoern A. Zeeb Come on. Learn, goddamn it., WarGames, 1983
Re: Getting pretty close to default IPv4 route maximum for 6500/7600routers.
On (2014-06-10 09:41 +), Bjoern A. Zeeb wrote: IPv4 addresses have little commercial value anymore and IPv6 is basically free. The only people who still haven’t realised don’t have enough money to spend on IPv4 to keep themselves alive for another decade. Wishing how markets should be and how markets are in this instance are divergent. -- ++ytti
Re: Getting pretty close to default IPv4 route maximum for 6500/7600routers.
On 10 Jun 2014, at 10:10 , Saku Ytti s...@ytti.fi wrote: On (2014-06-10 09:41 +), Bjoern A. Zeeb wrote: IPv4 addresses have little commercial value anymore and IPv6 is basically free. The only people who still haven’t realised don’t have enough money to spend on IPv4 to keep themselves alive for another decade. Wishing how markets should be and how markets are in this instance are divergent. You mean it’s more likely people acquire/merge with other companies for IP space then go through transfer? https://www.arin.net/knowledge/statistics/ — Bjoern A. Zeeb Come on. Learn, goddamn it., WarGames, 1983
Re: Getting pretty close to default IPv4 route maximum for 6500/7600routers.
On (2014-06-10 10:28 +), Bjoern A. Zeeb wrote: You mean it’s more likely people acquire/merge with other companies for IP space then go through transfer? https://www.arin.net/knowledge/statistics/ I mean that demand for IPv4 addresses will continue to foreseeable future, if you are offering content, and there is difference between reach for IPv6 and IPv4+IPv6, you're going to want to acquire some IPv4 addresses to avoid giving your competition an unfair advantage. How will this reflect to price, you imply price of IPv4 address is going to decrease, I expect it's not reached peak yet, due to still having RIR availability which sets natural limit to price. -- ++ytti
Re: Getting pretty close to default IPv4 route maximum for 6500/7600routers.
as many people will be hitting the wall on all sorts of platforms, perhaps it's wiki time. or have i just missed it? randy
Re: Getting pretty close to default IPv4 route maximum for 6500/7600routers.
The doc on how to adjust the 6500/7600 TCAM space was just published. http://www.cisco.com/c/en/us/support/docs/switches/catalyst-6500-series-switches/117712-problemsolution-cat6500-00.html On Tue, May 6, 2014 at 3:48 PM, Pete Lumbis alum...@gmail.com wrote: There is currently a doc for the ASR9k. We're working on getting on for 6500 as well. http://www.cisco.com/c/en/us/support/docs/routers/asr-9000-series-aggregation-services-routers/116999-problem-line-card-00.html On Tue, May 6, 2014 at 1:34 PM, bedard.p...@gmail.com wrote: I would like to see Cisco send something out... -Original Message- From: Drew Weaver drew.wea...@thenap.com Sent: 5/6/2014 11:42 AM To: 'nanog@nanog.org' nanog@nanog.org Subject: Getting pretty close to default IPv4 route maximum for 6500/7600routers. Hi all, I am wondering if maybe we should make some kind of concerted effort to remind folks about the IPv4 routing table inching closer and closer to the 512K route mark. We are at about 94/95% right now of 512K. For most of us, the 512K route mark is arbitrary but for a lot of folks who may still be running 6500/7600 or other routers which are by default configured to crash and burn after 512K routes; it may be a valuable public service. Even if you don't have this scenario in your network today; chances are you connect to someone who connects to someone who connects to someone (etc...) that does. In case anyone wants to check on a 6500, you can run: show platform hardware capacity pfc and then look under L3 Forwarding Resources. Just something to think about before it becomes a story the community talks about for the next decade. -Drew
Re: Getting pretty close to default IPv4 route maximum for 6500/7600routers.
Just had to do this on my router last week. Came in a few mornings ago and we were software switching, yay! On Mon, Jun 9, 2014 at 12:30 PM, Pete Lumbis alum...@gmail.com wrote: The doc on how to adjust the 6500/7600 TCAM space was just published. http://www.cisco.com/c/en/us/support/docs/switches/catalyst-6500-series-switches/117712-problemsolution-cat6500-00.html On Tue, May 6, 2014 at 3:48 PM, Pete Lumbis alum...@gmail.com wrote: There is currently a doc for the ASR9k. We're working on getting on for 6500 as well. http://www.cisco.com/c/en/us/support/docs/routers/asr-9000-series-aggregation-services-routers/116999-problem-line-card-00.html On Tue, May 6, 2014 at 1:34 PM, bedard.p...@gmail.com wrote: I would like to see Cisco send something out... -Original Message- From: Drew Weaver drew.wea...@thenap.com Sent: 5/6/2014 11:42 AM To: 'nanog@nanog.org' nanog@nanog.org Subject: Getting pretty close to default IPv4 route maximum for 6500/7600routers. Hi all, I am wondering if maybe we should make some kind of concerted effort to remind folks about the IPv4 routing table inching closer and closer to the 512K route mark. We are at about 94/95% right now of 512K. For most of us, the 512K route mark is arbitrary but for a lot of folks who may still be running 6500/7600 or other routers which are by default configured to crash and burn after 512K routes; it may be a valuable public service. Even if you don't have this scenario in your network today; chances are you connect to someone who connects to someone who connects to someone (etc...) that does. In case anyone wants to check on a 6500, you can run: show platform hardware capacity pfc and then look under L3 Forwarding Resources. Just something to think about before it becomes a story the community talks about for the next decade. -Drew -- eSited LLC (701) 390-9638
Re: Getting pretty close to default IPv4 route maximum for 6500/7600routers.
Why, in your example, do you bias the split so heavily toward IPv4 that the router won't be able to handle a current full v6 table? I've been using mls cef maximum-routes ip 768 which is probably still a little too liberal for IPv6 FIB TCAM maximum routes : === Current :- --- IPv4- 768k MPLS- 16k (default) IPv6 + IP Multicast - 120k (default) given that a full v6 table is around 17k routes today. A more important question though is how many 6500/7600 routers will fully survive the reload required to affect this change? I've lost a blade (presumably to the bad memory issue) each time I've rebooted a 6500 to apply this. On Mon, 9 Jun 2014, Pete Lumbis wrote: The doc on how to adjust the 6500/7600 TCAM space was just published. http://www.cisco.com/c/en/us/support/docs/switches/catalyst-6500-series-switches/117712-problemsolution-cat6500-00.html On Tue, May 6, 2014 at 3:48 PM, Pete Lumbis alum...@gmail.com wrote: There is currently a doc for the ASR9k. We're working on getting on for 6500 as well. http://www.cisco.com/c/en/us/support/docs/routers/asr-9000-series-aggregation-services-routers/116999-problem-line-card-00.html On Tue, May 6, 2014 at 1:34 PM, bedard.p...@gmail.com wrote: I would like to see Cisco send something out... -Original Message- From: Drew Weaver drew.wea...@thenap.com Sent: ÿÿ5/ÿÿ6/ÿÿ2014 11:42 AM To: 'nanog@nanog.org' nanog@nanog.org Subject: Getting pretty close to default IPv4 route maximum for 6500/7600routers. Hi all, I am wondering if maybe we should make some kind of concerted effort to remind folks about the IPv4 routing table inching closer and closer to the 512K route mark. We are at about 94/95% right now of 512K. For most of us, the 512K route mark is arbitrary but for a lot of folks who may still be running 6500/7600 or other routers which are by default configured to crash and burn after 512K routes; it may be a valuable public service. Even if you don't have this scenario in your network today; chances are you connect to someone who connects to someone who connects to someone (etc...) that does. In case anyone wants to check on a 6500, you can run: show platform hardware capacity pfc and then look under L3 Forwarding Resources. Just something to think about before it becomes a story the community talks about for the next decade. -Drew -- Jon Lewis, MCP :) | I route | therefore you are _ http://www.lewis.org/~jlewis/pgp for PGP public key_
Re: Getting pretty close to default IPv4 route maximum for 6500/7600routers.
The IPv6 table will not be as big as the v4 table even after full acceptance. Given that most providers will be advertising a single /32 and then rest will be some /48 routes for multi-homed scenarios. My router looks like this FIB TCAM maximum routes : === Current :- --- IPv4- 600k MPLS- 32k IPv6- 160k IP multicast- 32k Probably a little heavy on MPLS considering we dont use it. With the current level of exhaustion I dont think IPv4 will make it past 600k. We are currently seeing 520,000 routes. There are currently 107M IPs left globally. If those all went to /21's that would require 26,255 prefixes. If those all went to /22's that would require 52,510 prefixes. If those all went to /24's that would require 105,021 prefixes. So even the most conservative maximum should be no more than 626K On Mon, Jun 9, 2014 at 1:09 PM, Jon Lewis jle...@lewis.org wrote: Why, in your example, do you bias the split so heavily toward IPv4 that the router won't be able to handle a current full v6 table? I've been using mls cef maximum-routes ip 768 which is probably still a little too liberal for IPv6 FIB TCAM maximum routes : === Current :- --- IPv4- 768k MPLS- 16k (default) IPv6 + IP Multicast - 120k (default) given that a full v6 table is around 17k routes today. A more important question though is how many 6500/7600 routers will fully survive the reload required to affect this change? I've lost a blade (presumably to the bad memory issue) each time I've rebooted a 6500 to apply this. On Mon, 9 Jun 2014, Pete Lumbis wrote: The doc on how to adjust the 6500/7600 TCAM space was just published. http://www.cisco.com/c/en/us/support/docs/switches/ catalyst-6500-series-switches/117712-problemsolution-cat6500-00.html On Tue, May 6, 2014 at 3:48 PM, Pete Lumbis alum...@gmail.com wrote: There is currently a doc for the ASR9k. We're working on getting on for 6500 as well. http://www.cisco.com/c/en/us/support/docs/routers/asr-9000- series-aggregation-services-routers/116999-problem-line-card-00.html On Tue, May 6, 2014 at 1:34 PM, bedard.p...@gmail.com wrote: I would like to see Cisco send something out... -Original Message- From: Drew Weaver drew.wea...@thenap.com Sent: яя5/яя6/яя2014 11:42 AM To: 'nanog@nanog.org' nanog@nanog.org Subject: Getting pretty close to default IPv4 route maximum for 6500/7600routers. Hi all, I am wondering if maybe we should make some kind of concerted effort to remind folks about the IPv4 routing table inching closer and closer to the 512K route mark. We are at about 94/95% right now of 512K. For most of us, the 512K route mark is arbitrary but for a lot of folks who may still be running 6500/7600 or other routers which are by default configured to crash and burn after 512K routes; it may be a valuable public service. Even if you don't have this scenario in your network today; chances are you connect to someone who connects to someone who connects to someone (etc...) that does. In case anyone wants to check on a 6500, you can run: show platform hardware capacity pfc and then look under L3 Forwarding Resources. Just something to think about before it becomes a story the community talks about for the next decade. -Drew -- Jon Lewis, MCP :) | I route | therefore you are _ http://www.lewis.org/~jlewis/pgp for PGP public key_ -- eSited LLC (701) 390-9638
RE: Getting pretty close to default IPv4 route maximum for 6500/7600routers.
I would like to see Cisco send something out... -Original Message- From: Drew Weaver drew.wea...@thenap.com Sent: 5/6/2014 11:42 AM To: 'nanog@nanog.org' nanog@nanog.org Subject: Getting pretty close to default IPv4 route maximum for 6500/7600routers. Hi all, I am wondering if maybe we should make some kind of concerted effort to remind folks about the IPv4 routing table inching closer and closer to the 512K route mark. We are at about 94/95% right now of 512K. For most of us, the 512K route mark is arbitrary but for a lot of folks who may still be running 6500/7600 or other routers which are by default configured to crash and burn after 512K routes; it may be a valuable public service. Even if you don't have this scenario in your network today; chances are you connect to someone who connects to someone who connects to someone (etc...) that does. In case anyone wants to check on a 6500, you can run: show platform hardware capacity pfc and then look under L3 Forwarding Resources. Just something to think about before it becomes a story the community talks about for the next decade. -Drew
Re: Getting pretty close to default IPv4 route maximum for 6500/7600routers.
There is currently a doc for the ASR9k. We're working on getting on for 6500 as well. http://www.cisco.com/c/en/us/support/docs/routers/asr-9000-series-aggregation-services-routers/116999-problem-line-card-00.html On Tue, May 6, 2014 at 1:34 PM, bedard.p...@gmail.com wrote: I would like to see Cisco send something out... -Original Message- From: Drew Weaver drew.wea...@thenap.com Sent: 5/6/2014 11:42 AM To: 'nanog@nanog.org' nanog@nanog.org Subject: Getting pretty close to default IPv4 route maximum for 6500/7600routers. Hi all, I am wondering if maybe we should make some kind of concerted effort to remind folks about the IPv4 routing table inching closer and closer to the 512K route mark. We are at about 94/95% right now of 512K. For most of us, the 512K route mark is arbitrary but for a lot of folks who may still be running 6500/7600 or other routers which are by default configured to crash and burn after 512K routes; it may be a valuable public service. Even if you don't have this scenario in your network today; chances are you connect to someone who connects to someone who connects to someone (etc...) that does. In case anyone wants to check on a 6500, you can run: show platform hardware capacity pfc and then look under L3 Forwarding Resources. Just something to think about before it becomes a story the community talks about for the next decade. -Drew
