Marcus.Gerdon wrote:
Hi Rodney,
it might be a problem that one customer wants to behave it in one way
and the next customer in another.
I tend to think about this a bit different.
If RIB and FIB differ and by that forwarding isn't done along the
paths the protocols selected it is a bug. Either there's a
'fail-over' mode into software when TCAM is full - which is what
documentation and error message say - or there isn't.
I can't speak for the 6500 BU, but they've told me in the past:
"If it isn't supported in hardware, it's not supported."
I suspect the software forwarding path is simply not supported on a 6500.
Reorganization of the TCAM seriously affects traffic forwarding -
I've already verified that by the various 'cef inconsistency'
options. So that's no real option to implement.
Compressing the TCAM entries... that might provide a way to put more
prefixes into the TCAM.
But in my opinion that's not really necessary. The TCAM serves
roughly 250k entries. That's what it is designed and built for. All I
expect is that fallback to work correctly.
I do not think your expectations match the intent of the 6500 BU, based
on what I've been told in the past.
_______________________________________________
cisco-nsp mailing list [email protected]
https://puck.nether.net/mailman/listinfo/cisco-nsp
archive at http://puck.nether.net/pipermail/cisco-nsp/
