On Mon, Oct 29, 2007 at 11:45:25AM -0600, Brandon Bennett wrote:
> You are correct, default settings it will be ok up to 512k of IPv4
> routes. Same tuning techniques can be used to bring that number
> significantly higher (but by that time we will all be starting threads
> on IPv6 TCAM size)
Yup, i'm kinda interested how far some of the smaller isps and
enterprises are doing on IPv6 deployments. There's a lot of people that
think we're not gonna need or want to v6.
Router-3BXL#show mls cef max
FIB TCAM maximum routes :
=======================
Current :-
-------
IPv4 + MPLS - 512k (default)
IPv6 + IP Multicast - 256k (default)
Router-3B#show mls cef maximum-routes
FIB TCAM maximum routes :
=======================
Current :-
-------
IPv4 + MPLS - 192k (default)
IPv6 + IP Multicast - 32k (default)
- Jared
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_y36fG2Oba0
> On 10/29/07, Ramcharan, Vijay A <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> > Am I correct in saying that the 3BXL is not hindered by the 239K
> > ceiling?
> >
> > According to
> > http://www.cisco.com/en/US/products/hw/modules/ps2797/products_data_shee
> > t09186a0080159856.html it appears that the 3BXL is more than ready for
> > projected increases in the size of the full BGP table.
> >
--
Jared Mauch | pgp key available via finger from [EMAIL PROTECTED]
clue++; | http://puck.nether.net/~jared/ My statements are only mine.
_______________________________________________
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/
