On 02/11/15 14:31, Alistair Key wrote: > My current supervisors hold up to 1 million routes and each have 1GB > DRAM each for the route and switch processors.
Sounds like Cisco SUP720 3BXL? Whilst there's a bit of headroom left in the TCAM, the 1GB RP memory they sport is beginning to look strained for routers receiving full table transit sessions. If so, I'd start by making sure you're not accepting prefixes equal-to or greater than a /25 from upstreams/peers. (The same limit of /49 goes for IPv6). Trying to filter based on 'ASNs of a country' is problematic, to say the least. The same goes for 'prefixes of a country'. Though note that /24 prefixes (and /48 for IPv6) make up around half of the DFZ table, so there's your semi-tactical nuclear option. Other things that might help: 1. Not using 'soft-configuration in' (as per Andy) 2. If you're using multiple supervisors, RPR+ will use less memory than SSO redundancy, at the expense of time-to-fail-over 3. IOS 12.2SRE uses a fair bit less RAM than anything 15.x But really, getting to the point of #2 or #3 is a bit hap-hazard, vs. just buying new routers. The 6880-XL (actually XXL as it has a 2M IPv4 FIB), the ASR1K (with enough DRAM) and the ASR9k are all very sensible Cisco upgrade routes, of varying cost. Presuming I'm right about the SUP720, you should be pestering management daily to start budgeting for new routers *very* early into the new financial year. :) If you need to last slightly longer, the RSP720 3CXL has the same TCAM limit as the SUP720 3BXL, but a greater DRAM limit (>4GB for the RP, if I recall correctly) and that is a drop-in replacement for most of the 7600/6500 configurations that people run. Just be careful, as support costs for those systems becomes per-LC rather than per-chassis, and if you have any 3BXL DFC daughter boards (show module, show inv) then you'll need to replace those with 3CXL equivalents. HTH, -- Tom
