Mailing List Archive

512K routes approaching - have you adjusted your tcam settings
As many readers on this list know the routing table is approaching 512K routes.
For some it has already passed this threshold.
For those that aren't familiar with the issues associated with passing this threshold,
I suggest the following two documents:

http://www.ipv4depletion.com/?p=672

http://www.cisco.com/c/en/us/support/docs/switches/catalyst-6500-series-switches/117712-problemsolution-cat6500-00.html

Effected devices include 6500s (including sup 2T), 7600s, nexus 7Ks and many devices by other vendors.
This problem will likely impact us in some way over the next month even if we fixed our devices because
We connect to other services that have not prepared.

So be on the lookout for MLSCEF-SP-7-FIB_EXCEPTION messages in your logs.

Mack McBride | Network Architect | ViaWest, Inc.




_______________________________________________
cisco-nsp mailing list cisco-nsp@puck.nether.net
https://puck.nether.net/mailman/listinfo/cisco-nsp
archive at http://puck.nether.net/pipermail/cisco-nsp/
Re: 512K routes approaching - have you adjusted your tcam settings [ In reply to ]
On 25/07/2014 16:32, Mack McBride wrote:
> Effected devices include 6500s (including sup 2T), 7600s, nexus 7Ks and many devices by other vendors.
> This problem will likely impact us in some way over the next month even if we fixed our devices because

+ ASR9k with trident cards.

> http://www.cisco.com/c/en/us/support/docs/routers/asr-9000-series-aggregation-services-routers/116999-problem-line-card-00.html

Nick



_______________________________________________
cisco-nsp mailing list cisco-nsp@puck.nether.net
https://puck.nether.net/mailman/listinfo/cisco-nsp
archive at http://puck.nether.net/pipermail/cisco-nsp/
Re: 512K routes approaching - have you adjusted your tcam settings [ In reply to ]
Hi Mack,

I am wondering about "including sup 2T"?
As far as I see Sup2T has no static CAM partition anymore and therefore
needs no specific maximums set.

kind regards
Rolf

> As many readers on this list know the routing table is approaching 512K
> routes.
> For some it has already passed this threshold.
> For those that aren't familiar with the issues associated with passing
> this threshold,
> I suggest the following two documents:
>
> http://www.ipv4depletion.com/?p=672
>
> http://www.cisco.com/c/en/us/support/docs/switches/catalyst-6500-series-switches/117712-problemsolution-cat6500-00.html
>
> Effected devices include 6500s (including sup 2T), 7600s, nexus 7Ks and
> many devices by other vendors.
> This problem will likely impact us in some way over the next month even if
> we fixed our devices because
> We connect to other services that have not prepared.
>
> So be on the lookout for MLSCEF-SP-7-FIB_EXCEPTION messages in your logs.
>
> Mack McBride | Network Architect | ViaWest, Inc.
>
>
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> cisco-nsp mailing list cisco-nsp@puck.nether.net
> https://puck.nether.net/mailman/listinfo/cisco-nsp
> archive at http://puck.nether.net/pipermail/cisco-nsp/
>


_______________________________________________
cisco-nsp mailing list cisco-nsp@puck.nether.net
https://puck.nether.net/mailman/listinfo/cisco-nsp
archive at http://puck.nether.net/pipermail/cisco-nsp/
Re: 512K routes approaching - have you adjusted your tcam settings [ In reply to ]
On 26/07/14 13:15, "Rolf Hanßen" wrote:
> As far as I see Sup2T has no static CAM partition anymore and therefore
> needs no specific maximums set.

It's included because it doesn't have any /more/ TCAM space than
3BXL/3CXL. Though the automatic allocation certainly makes life easier -
less reboots for repartitioning.

Tom
_______________________________________________
cisco-nsp mailing list cisco-nsp@puck.nether.net
https://puck.nether.net/mailman/listinfo/cisco-nsp
archive at http://puck.nether.net/pipermail/cisco-nsp/
Re: 512K routes approaching - have you adjusted your tcam settings [ In reply to ]
On 27/07/14 20:12, Tom Hill wrote:
> It's included because it doesn't have any /more/ TCAM space than
> 3BXL/3CXL. Though the automatic allocation certainly makes life easier -
> less reboots for repartitioning.

Though, I'm reminded that the 6880-XL has double the TCAM space of other
S2Ts. This leads me to guess that the next supervisor for the 6800 will
have similar (or greater) TCAM provisioning.

Tom
_______________________________________________
cisco-nsp mailing list cisco-nsp@puck.nether.net
https://puck.nether.net/mailman/listinfo/cisco-nsp
archive at http://puck.nether.net/pipermail/cisco-nsp/
Re: 512K routes approaching - have you adjusted your tcam settings [ In reply to ]
I forgot about that.
The tcam settings on the Sup2T are dynamic.

Mack McBride | Network Architect | ViaWest, Inc.
O: 720.891.2502 | mack.mcbride@viawest.com | www.viawest.com | LinkedIn | Twitter | YouTube


-----Original Message-----
From: "Rolf Hanßen" [mailto:nsp@rhanssen.de]
Sent: Saturday, July 26, 2014 6:16 AM
To: Mack McBride
Cc: cisco-nsp
Subject: Re: [c-nsp] 512K routes approaching - have you adjusted your tcam settings

Hi Mack,

I am wondering about "including sup 2T"?
As far as I see Sup2T has no static CAM partition anymore and therefore needs no specific maximums set.

kind regards
Rolf

> As many readers on this list know the routing table is approaching
> 512K routes.
> For some it has already passed this threshold.
> For those that aren't familiar with the issues associated with passing
> this threshold, I suggest the following two documents:
>
> http://www.ipv4depletion.com/?p=672
>
> http://www.cisco.com/c/en/us/support/docs/switches/catalyst-6500-serie
> s-switches/117712-problemsolution-cat6500-00.html
>
> Effected devices include 6500s (including sup 2T), 7600s, nexus 7Ks
> and many devices by other vendors.
> This problem will likely impact us in some way over the next month
> even if we fixed our devices because We connect to other services that
> have not prepared.
>
> So be on the lookout for MLSCEF-SP-7-FIB_EXCEPTION messages in your logs.
>
> Mack McBride | Network Architect | ViaWest, Inc.
>
>
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> cisco-nsp mailing list cisco-nsp@puck.nether.net
> https://puck.nether.net/mailman/listinfo/cisco-nsp
> archive at http://puck.nether.net/pipermail/cisco-nsp/
>



_______________________________________________
cisco-nsp mailing list cisco-nsp@puck.nether.net
https://puck.nether.net/mailman/listinfo/cisco-nsp
archive at http://puck.nether.net/pipermail/cisco-nsp/