Today I tested a Sup2T-XL and a Sup720BXL in the lab with full bgp feeds for
ipv4 and ipv6.
To my understanding the hardware capacity for the FIB TCAM is the same for
Sup720-BXL and Sup2T-XL.
Sup2T-XL output of "sh platform hardware capacity":CAT6500-RC2TXL#sh platform
hardware capacity | begin L3 Forwarding Resources
L3 Forwarding Resources FIB TCAM usage:
Total Used %Used 72 bits (IPv4, MPLS, EoM)
1048576 465980 44% 144 bits (IP mcast, IPv6)
524288 14903 3% 288 bits (IPv6 mcast)
262144 1 1%
detail: Protocol Used %Used
IPv4 465978
44% MPLS 1
1% EoM 1
1%
IPv6 14894
3% IPv4 mcast 9
1% IPv6 mcast 1
1%
Adjacency usage: Total Used %Used
1048576 32018
3%
Sup720BXL output of "sh platform hardware capacity": (FIB TCAM partitioned with
"mls cef maximum-routes ip 768")
CAT6500-RC720BXL#sh platform hardware capacity | begin L3 Forwarding Resources
L3 Forwarding Resources
FIB TCAM usage: Total Used
%Used
72 bits (IPv4, MPLS, EoM) 802816 467348
58%
144 bits (IP mcast, IPv6) 122880 14970
12%
detail: Protocol Used %Used
IPv4 467338
58%
MPLS 9
1%
EoM 1
1%
IPv6 14963
12%
IPv4 mcast 4
1%
IPv6 mcast 3
1%
Adjacency usage: Total Used %Used
1048576 1481
1%
The release notes say:
-XL mode:
· IPv4 and MPLS: Up to 1,007,000 routes
· IPv4 multicast and IPv6 unicast and multicast: Up to 503,000 routes
"These are the theoretical maximum numbers of routes for the supported
protocols (the maximums are not supported simultaneously):"
The above output of the Sup2T-XL seems to say that the Sup2T-XL has a larger
FIB TCAM (2M) than the Sup720-BXL.
Christian
_______________________________________________
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/
