A related question - can the 1002 with RP1 be upgraded with third party
memory? Mine has 4g on it but before I roll into production if there's a
cheap upgrade, might as well do it.
Mike-
___
cisco-nsp mailing list cisco-nsp@puck.nether.net
https:/
I'm now filtering the full tables on these routers. In this situation,
would those outputs still be relevant?
On Tue, Aug 12, 2014 at 5:59 PM, Antonio Soares wrote:
> Can you share these outputs from both routers ?
>
> "show cef fib"
> "show cef table"
>
>
> Regards,
>
> Antonio Soares, CCIE #184
Hi,
On Wed, 6 Aug 2014, Chuck Church wrote:
That seems crazy that 4GB can't support a full table. I know the ASR halves
it's memory to support SW redundancy, but still. You don't have SSO
configured on the ASR do you? I saw that that split the memory in half once
again. Not at all necessary
I've been talking to our Cisco guys about SW redundancy, and the advantages of
sub-package mode. They're claiming the sub-package mode uses less memory than
the consolidated mode. We've never played with it, but maybe something to look
at.
Chuck
-Original Message-
From: cisco-nsp [
Can you share these outputs from both routers ?
"show cef fib"
"show cef table"
Regards,
Antonio Soares, CCIE #18473 (RS/SP)
amsoa...@netcabo.pt
http://www.ccie18473.net
-Original Message-
From: cisco-nsp [mailto:cisco-nsp-boun...@puck.nether.net] On Behalf Of Gabriel
Sent: terça-feira
Hello Valeriu,
I think that even for Management Ethernet ports - these limits are controlled
by the LPTS process.
However on ASR9k I'm not able to view or change the policers for the Managemet
Ethernet ports (Route Switch Procesor location)
You can try to check yours with: "sh lpts pifib hard
Hi,
we have 2 ASR1001 in one location. They each receive a full table from
different providers and have an iBGP session between them. One of them
generated this message today:
*Aug 11 23:11:16.983: %FIB-2-FIBDOWN: CEF has been disabled due to a
low memory condition. It can be re-enabled by config
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA1
Hello,
Are there any limitations (rate limits) for traffic, applied to
management Ethernet interface of a CRS3 PRP (Performance Route
Processor) ? Temporarily changing those limits, if possible, would be
great for our experiment. I was not able to fin
On Tuesday, August 12, 2014 12:13:20 AM Cydon Satyr wrote:
> I understand the idea, but I still don't see how it could
> benefit all networks, some yes. In our case only our PE
> routers have at least two uplinks, as first IP/MPLS
> point. We use 3400/3600 in access layer only as L2, they
> all ha
