On 22/09/2020 07:10, Gert Doering wrote:
> It's not "somewhat old", Cisco has explicitly declared the RSP-440
> end-of-life.
In colloquial British English use, these things mean the same thing :p
> So - if you know exactly what you are getting yourself into, getting a
> used ASR-9006 + RSP-440
Hi,
On Mon, Sep 21, 2020 at 10:14:40PM +0100, Tom Hill wrote:
> The only issue now is (as gert alludes to) RSP-440 are somewhat old, as
> is the 9006 chassis.
It's not "somewhat old", Cisco has explicitly declared the RSP-440
end-of-life. The ASR-9006 chassis is still supported.
> Whats happens when TCAM is full on 7600/RSP720RSP-3CXL?
2016.
> Last question. Can I take a full BGP feed on both v4 and v6 with a
> A9K-RSP440-TR? Or do I need the -SE?
More seriously - the 'TR' scale and 'SE' scale don't differ in TCAM,
only in their installed RAM. This may matter to
--- Begin Message ---
On Fri, 18 Sep 2020, chiel wrote:
Is it ok to set "maximum-prefix 0" on my v6 session? Or is it better to
make a prefix list like " ipv6 prefix-list IPV6-IN seq 10 deny ::/0 le
128" top stop receiving routes from my upstream?
It's better to filter incoming routes. That
18.09.2020 15:54, chiel wrote:
> I'm currently using a 7606 (RSP720RSP-3CXL) and taking in full BGP on v4 and
> v6.
> Obviously it the TCAM is almost full and the box needs to be replaced.
I use same router with two copies of full BGP on v4 and v6.
There is a way to mitigate the problem without
On 18-09-2020 12:12, Mikael Abrahamsson wrote:
My advice is "don't let that happen".
Thanks for the advice and feedback all!
I will set "maximum-prefix" on my sessions, and stop receiving full v6
table and just make a default route for v6. Then I can give more space
to v4 (will require
Hey,
> So in most cases it will look that way:
> #show mls cef exception status
> Current IPv4 FIB exception state = TRUE
> Current IPv6 FIB exception state = FALSE
> Current MPLS FIB exception state = FALSE
>
> And yes, the box will drop down to a few MBit of Traffic.
Not only that, but there
Hi,
On Fri, Sep 18, 2020 at 12:44:55PM +0200, ??ukasz Bromirski wrote:
> For traffic going to prefixes that failed to be installed in HW,
> resulting performance will be similar to what you can get on those
> pretty small, non-x86 CPUs.
Much worse, actually, as the control-plane limiters hit
Hi,
On Fri, Sep 18, 2020 at 10:54:53AM +0200, chiel wrote:
> 3. New route entries will be software routed, but entries that are
> already in TCAM will be hardware routed. You won't notice much impact in
> the beginning.
"Route entries that have churn will end up in software" *and* "the
Hi,
> On 18 Sep 2020, at 11:50, Rolf Hanßen wrote:
>
> Hi,
>
> at least for Sup720-3B(XL) and Sup-2T it results in number 1 for the
> family that hit the limit.
>
> So in most cases it will look that way:
> #show mls cef exception status
> Current IPv4 FIB exception state = TRUE
> Current
--- Begin Message ---
On Fri, 18 Sep 2020, chiel wrote:
I have been hearing different scenario of what would happen when the TCAM is
full:
1. The whole thing goes into software routing mode for all routes which
causes 100% CPU and resulting and unusable box
2. New route entries will just get
Hi,
at least for Sup720-3B(XL) and Sup-2T it results in number 1 for the
family that hit the limit.
So in most cases it will look that way:
#show mls cef exception status
Current IPv4 FIB exception state = TRUE
Current IPv6 FIB exception state = FALSE
Current MPLS FIB exception state = FALSE
12 matches
Mail list logo
