Hello, We have restarted the SSB and routing processes, such as BGP sessions, is-is and so on, but the problem persists. We have decided to eliminate the logical router and thus freeing up memory for adding new prefixes.
Thanks Juniper Iber-x wrote: > Jeff S Wheeler wrote: > >> On Thu, 2009-03-05 at 12:58 +0100, Juniper Iber-x wrote: >> >> >>> Hellos, >>> >>> This is what command showing: >>> >>> IPv4 Route Tables: >>> Index Routes Size(b) >>> -------- ---------- ---------- >>> Default 275509 19548772 >>> 1 6 422 >>> 2 275455 19544884 >>> >>> >> See, you have two full routing tables. One is the "Default" table, >> which is called inet.0, and you can see it has 275,509 routes. You also >> have a logical router, with its own inet.0 table (presumably that's what >> it is called) which has 275,455 routes. >> >> This is very bad. Some routes are not being installed into hardware. >> You may not notice a serious issue yet, especially if you have default >> routes configured in those tables; but which routes fail to be installed >> are not within your control. Eventually, it will be a customer route, >> and instead of traffic being safely defaulted to one of your transit >> providers, it will ... be defaulted to transit ... instead of going to >> the customer. And the problem will get worse, because the routing table >> grows every day. This is why your configuration worked fine when it was >> initially setup, but as the routing table grew, you ran out of SSRAM. >> >> You have the following choices to fix the problem: >> 1) upgrade your router to SSB-E-16, which has more SSRAM >> 2) stop carrying full routes in both of those tables >> 3) use a default route + forwarding-table export policy to reduce the >> number of routes required in hardware while still forwarding correctly. >> >> Let me know if you need some per-hour help. I have been doing #3 for >> about five years on purpose to allow my clients to do some interesting >> things with their networks. That will definitely be cheaper than #1. >> Or if you don't need full routes in that logical-router, then just get >> rid of them. >> >> Hope this helps, >> >> > But is very strange because we have another very similar topology and > this error doesn't show there. > The router where the error is showing doesn't run full-routing on its > logical-router... > > It's possible to eliminate the logical-router. > Would that solve the problem? > > Thanks in advance > _______________________________________________ juniper-nsp mailing list juniper-nsp@puck.nether.net https://puck.nether.net/mailman/listinfo/juniper-nsp