Hi,
On Tue, Jan 08, 2008 at 10:14:09AM -0800, Mark Boolootian wrote:
I'm probably a bad person for asking, and not first searching, but can
someone remind me what happens when the FIB fills
Sup32 with 12.2SXFsomething seem to crash...
(Haven't had that fun experience ourselves, but have
Hi,
On Tue, Jan 08, 2008 at 07:04:09PM +0100, Peter Rathlev wrote:
Of course, hadn't thought of that. And I guess the Sup32 doesn't come
in an XL version. :-)
Technically, it would be possible, but Cisco Marketing decided that
they Do Not Want That.
gert
--
USENET is *not* the non-clickable
Hi,
On Wed, 9 Jan 2008, Gert Doering wrote:
Hi,
On Tue, Jan 08, 2008 at 10:14:09AM -0800, Mark Boolootian wrote:
I'm probably a bad person for asking, and not first searching, but can
someone remind me what happens when the FIB fills
Sup32 with 12.2SXFsomething seem to crash...
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
On 1/9/08, Mohacsi Janos [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Hi,
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
We are using one of our SUP32 (SXF7) with full routing table, and also
without
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
Nicolas DEFFAYET wrote:
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
Hi,
On Wed, Jan 09, 2008 at 11:53:23AM +0100, Nicolas DEFFAYET wrote:
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
On Wed, Jan 09, 2008 at 10:51:21AM +0100, David Granzer wrote:
FIB TCAM maximum routes :
===
Current :-
---
IPv4- 239k
Total routes: 243424
IPv4 unicast routes: 241202
L3 Forwarding Resources
FIB
On 1/9/08, Euan Galloway [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
On Wed, Jan 09, 2008 at 10:51:21AM +0100, David Granzer wrote:
FIB TCAM maximum routes :
===
Current :-
---
IPv4- 239k
Total routes: 243424
IPv4 unicast routes:
On Tue, Jan 08, 2008 at 07:45:11AM -0800, Mark Kent wrote:
So, I'm looking at the cisco web pages and I see the 7600 is
pushed big-time as a service provider edge device, and yet I see
that the sup32-3b has a 300Mhz processor, and so it is not
much faster than an NPE-300 (262Mhz).
I stopped
On Tue, 2008-01-08 at 07:45 -0800, Mark Kent wrote:
So, I'm looking at the cisco web pages and I see the 7600 is pushed
big-time as a service provider edge device, and yet I see that the
sup32-3b has a 300Mhz processor, and so it is not much faster than an
NPE-300 (262Mhz).
I stopped
Peter Rathlev wrote:
With 512MB memory, it can't take a full table? The world is moving fast
I guess. :-)
Not the memory is the issue, but TCAM size and on the Sup32 it can't
take full routes anymore (as it's limited to 239k routes, iirc).
___
At 06:32 PM 1/8/2008 +0100, Peter Rathlev wrote:
On Tue, 2008-01-08 at 07:45 -0800, Mark Kent wrote:
So, I'm looking at the cisco web pages and I see the 7600 is pushed
big-time as a service provider edge device, and yet I see that the
sup32-3b has a 300Mhz processor, and so it is not much
At 06:32 PM 1/8/2008 +0100, Peter Rathlev wrote:
On Tue, 2008-01-08 at 07:45 -0800, Mark Kent wrote:
So, I'm looking at the cisco web pages and I see the 7600 is pushed
big-time as a service provider edge device, and yet I see that the
sup32-3b has a 300Mhz processor, and so it is not much
On Tue, 2008-01-08 at 19:46 +0200, Eugeniu Patrascu wrote:
Not the memory is the issue, but TCAM size and on the Sup32 it can't
take full routes anymore (as it's limited to 239k routes, iirc).
On Tue, 2008-01-08 at 09:50 -0800, Ian Cox wrote:
It forwards in hardware if the FIB will fit into
: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of Mark Kent
Sent: martedì 8 gennaio 2008 16.45
To: cisco-nsp@puck.nether.net
Subject: [c-nsp] 7604/sup32
So, I'm looking at the cisco web pages and I see the 7600 is
pushed big-time as a service provider edge device, and yet I see
that the sup32
Ian Cox wrote:
It forwards in hardware if the FIB will fit into the hardware FIB
table. The full internet table will not fit into a
PFC2/PFC3a/PFC3b/FFC3a/DFC3b/PFC3C/DFC3C anymore since the hardware
table, even after changing from the default will only get you 239k
routes. For full
If you don't use XLs and then you wind up with FIB exception and
packets forwarded in software.
Packets for those routes that haven't been installed in the FIB...
I'm probably a bad person for asking, and not first searching, but can
someone remind me what happens when the FIB fills - what
[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
There has been alot of talk about this on the list
yeah, but it's nice to get it boiled down to the essentials,
like you and others did.
Thanks,
-mark
___
cisco-nsp mailing list cisco-nsp@puck.nether.net
On Tue, Jan 08, 2008 at 10:14:09AM -0800, Mark Boolootian wrote:
If you don't use XLs and then you wind up with FIB exception and
packets forwarded in software.
Packets for those routes that haven't been installed in the FIB...
Switched to the floor if you are unlucky enough in topology
21 matches
Mail list logo
