Hello Tim,
Our routine on ASR9001-S - 3M.
ASR9001-S#show route summary
Thu Feb 13 10:20:55
Route Source Routes Backup Deleted Memory(bytes)
connected41 1 0 6720
local42 0
> Have you tested what happens with an XR BGP when a valid peer sends you
> ~2,147,483,647 prefixes please?
>
> My guess is the BGP runs out of memory and restarts -what happens to the
> FIB on all line-cards I'm not even guessing...
> And then the RRs pushing 2bilions of prefixes to all other
On 3/Feb/20 23:15, adamv0...@netconsultings.com wrote:
> Have you tested what happens with an XR BGP when a valid peer sends
> you ~2,147,483,647 prefixes please?
> My guess is the BGP runs out of memory and restarts -what happens to the FIB
> on all line-cards I'm not even guessing...
> And
> Mark Tinka
> Sent: Monday, January 27, 2020 7:14 AM
>
> On 27/Jan/20 08:05, Hank Nussbacher wrote:
>
> > As many of us run full routing tables on our ASR9000s, we have just
> > found popping up in our logs:
> > gp[1058]: %ROUTING-BGP-5-MAXPFX : No. of IPv4 Unicast prefixes
> > received from
On Mon, 27 Jan 2020 at 12:21, Saku Ytti wrote:
>
> On Mon, 27 Jan 2020 at 12:54, Lukas Tribus wrote:
>
> > I'm confused; I'm running Internet in a MPLS VPNs with per-ce label
> > allocation on ASR9k since 2016, for both address-families.
> >
> > What is CSCvf15291 about exactly (it's not
On Mon, 27 Jan 2020 at 12:54, Lukas Tribus wrote:
> I'm confused; I'm running Internet in a MPLS VPNs with per-ce label
> allocation on ASR9k since 2016, for both address-families.
>
> What is CSCvf15291 about exactly (it's not public).
IPv4 unicast, everything else had it since day1(?).
--
Hello,
On Mon, 27 Jan 2020 at 11:15, Saku Ytti wrote:
> > For people running full tables with labels (BGP-LU or
> > Internet-in-a-VRF), it's probably a good time to start thinking about
> > their label consumption, if a label is allocated per-prefix (default
> > in Cisco land at least for MPLS
On Mon, 27 Jan 2020 at 11:24, Lukas Tribus wrote:
> For people running full tables with labels (BGP-LU or
> Internet-in-a-VRF), it's probably a good time to start thinking about
> their label consumption, if a label is allocated per-prefix (default
> in Cisco land at least for MPLS VPNs).
You
Hello,
On Mon, 27 Jan 2020 at 08:14, Mark Tinka wrote:
> On 27/Jan/20 08:05, Hank Nussbacher wrote:
>
> > As many of us run full routing tables on our ASR9000s, we have just
> > found popping up in our logs:
> > gp[1058]: %ROUTING-BGP-5-MAXPFX : No. of IPv4 Unicast prefixes
> > received from
On 27/Jan/20 08:05, Hank Nussbacher wrote:
> As many of us run full routing tables on our ASR9000s, we have just
> found popping up in our logs:
> gp[1058]: %ROUTING-BGP-5-MAXPFX : No. of IPv4 Unicast prefixes
> received from xxx.xxx.220.91 has reached 786433, max 1048576
> Reference:
>
As many of us run full routing tables on our ASR9000s, we have just
found popping up in our logs:
gp[1058]: %ROUTING-BGP-5-MAXPFX : No. of IPv4 Unicast prefixes received
from xxx.xxx.220.91 has reached 786433, max 1048576
Reference:
11 matches
Mail list logo
