Oh you should be fine with only 12 routes, this was about 150-200k routes and probably 12-15 vrf's.
On 13/02/2008, at 11:15 AM, Adam Greene wrote: > Thanks all. I wish it were as simple as getting a new processor. > > Being stuck with the NPE-300 for now, I'll probably go the route of > adding PDLM's. > > Note on the 12.4 issues: what kind of memory issues were you seeing, > Ben? We only manage about 12 routes on this router between OSPF and > BGP so I wonder if that would really be an issue for us. > > Thanks, > Adam > > ----- Original Message ----- From: "Ben Steele" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> > To: "Joseph Jackson" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> > Cc: <[email protected]> > Sent: Tuesday, February 12, 2008 1:17 AM > Subject: Re: [c-nsp] IOS for NBAR on 7206VXR/300 > > >> That's funny because TAC actually asked me to upgrade the NPE-300 to >> 12.4(18) from 12.4(17a), then again everyone gets mixed results with >> TAC. >> >> On 12/02/2008, at 3:36 PM, Joseph Jackson wrote: >> >>> I was told by TAC that 12.2 was the latest release of IOS that is >>> support on the 300. So if you have a problem they'll make you >>> downgrade. >>> >>> On 2/11/08, Christian Koch <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: >>> just get rid of the 300... :) >>> >>> On Feb 11, 2008 7:56 PM, Ben Steele <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: >>> >>> > Be careful if your going to run 12.4 on a NPE-300 or less when you >>> > have BGP and especially MPLS VPN's as you start to run into memory >>> > problems which for me resulted in unstable routing tables. >>> > >>> > 12.3(14)T7 is working well for me on NPE-300's with BGP/MPLS VPN's >>> and >>> > also capable of doing NBAR, you can probably just put any extra >>> PDLM's >>> > you require into flash if they aren't already in NBAR for you. >>> > >>> > Ben >>> > >>> > On 12/02/2008, at 11:13 AM, Adam Greene wrote: >>> > >>> > > Hi, >>> > > >>> > > Any suggestions for a stable advanced ip services 12.4 IOS for >>> > > 7206VXR-NPE300 which will support BGP routing and NBAR? >>> > > >>> > > Looks like the last peer-to-peer protocol recognition >>> enhancement >>> > > was done in 12.4(4)T. >>> > > >>> > > I wonder if 12.4(4)T is stable in general. It's the T which >>> scares >>> > > me. And it's an older processor. Maybe I shouldn't worry. >>> > > >>> > > Thanks, >>> > > Adam >>> > > >>> > > >>> > > >>> > > _______________________________________________ >>> > > cisco-nsp mailing list [email protected] >>> > > https://puck.nether.net/mailman/listinfo/cisco-nsp >>> > > archive at http://puck.nether.net/pipermail/cisco-nsp/ >>> > >>> > _______________________________________________ >>> > cisco-nsp mailing list [email protected] >>> > https://puck.nether.net/mailman/listinfo/cisco-nsp >>> > archive at http://puck.nether.net/pipermail/cisco-nsp/ >>> > >>> _______________________________________________ >>> cisco-nsp mailing list [email protected] >>> https://puck.nether.net/mailman/listinfo/cisco-nsp >>> archive at http://puck.nether.net/pipermail/cisco-nsp/ >>> >> >> _______________________________________________ >> cisco-nsp mailing list [email protected] >> https://puck.nether.net/mailman/listinfo/cisco-nsp >> archive at http://puck.nether.net/pipermail/cisco-nsp/ >> >> >> >> > > > > _______________________________________________ cisco-nsp mailing list [email protected] https://puck.nether.net/mailman/listinfo/cisco-nsp archive at http://puck.nether.net/pipermail/cisco-nsp/
