On 14 May 2016 at 09:23, Gert Doering wrote:
> Hi,
>
> On Sat, May 14, 2016 at 06:57:42AM +, Adam Vitkovsky wrote:
>> Thank you very much for posting this back to the list,
>> Wasn't aware the hierarchical lookup is most likely done via
>> recirculation on 7600 (what a nasty trick)
>
> Well, I
Hi,
On Sat, May 14, 2016 at 06:57:42AM +, Adam Vitkovsky wrote:
> Thank you very much for posting this back to the list,
> Wasn't aware the hierarchical lookup is most likely done via
> recirculation on 7600 (what a nasty trick)
Well, I find it an interesting option to give to users - if yo
> James Bensley
> Sent: Tuesday, May 03, 2016 1:45 PM
> To: cisco-nsp@puck.nether.net
> Subject: Re: [c-nsp] Hierarchical FIB on Cisco 7600
>
> On 23 April 2016 at 20:38, Adam Vitkovsky
> wrote:
> >> Reviving this old thread, is anyone running a hierarchical FIB on
On 23 April 2016 at 20:38, Adam Vitkovsky wrote:
>> Reviving this old thread, is anyone running a hierarchical FIB on a 7600,
>> how is
>> it working for you? Has it halved your PPS rate for
>> VPNv4/VPNv6 traffic due to recirculation?
>>
> Sorry can't comment on this
I've had some off lists res
> James Bensley
> Sent: Thursday, April 21, 2016 5:55 PM
>
> Hi All,
>
> Reviving this old thread, is anyone running a hierarchical FIB on a 7600, how
> is
> it working for you? Has it halved your PPS rate for
> VPNv4/VPNv6 traffic due to recirculation?
>
Sorry can't comment on this
> PIC Edge
Hi All,
Reviving this old thread, is anyone running a hierarchical FIB on a
7600, how is it working for you? Has it halved your PPS rate for
VPNv4/VPNv6 traffic due to recirculation?
The Cisco documentation is fairly light and ambiguous. L2 and L3 VPNs
are a major bread-and-butter at $dayjob so h
Hi Christian.
I think I get now; I think using "bgp add-path install" installs route in
CEF, rather than route sitting in BGP table only. So no waiting on best
path selection process. But I don't think it's sitting in RIB, I mean it
doesn't use extra TCAM space, only DRAM?
Anyway, thanks all agai
On 26 Apr 2014, at 12:50, Cydon Satyr wrote:
> I see. But then is there any effect of having repair path installed with
> "bgp additional-paths install" command on platform without Hierarchical
> FIBs or is it purely cosmetic?
Regardless of PIC through ADD-PATH you can make use of multiple pathe
I guess any BGP PIC is out of the question on 7600 with flat fib and single
uplink.
Regards
On Sat, Apr 26, 2014 at 12:50 PM, Cydon Satyr wrote:
> I see. But then is there any effect of having repair path installed with
> "bgp additional-paths install" command on platform without Hierarchical
I see. But then is there any effect of having repair path installed with
"bgp additional-paths install" command on platform without Hierarchical
FIBs or is it purely cosmetic?
Thank you again :)
On Sat, Apr 26, 2014 at 8:00 AM, Oliver Boehmer (oboehmer) <
oboeh...@cisco.com> wrote:
>
> >Thank y
>Thank you all; so let me just see if I got this right.
>
>If we're not loadbalancing with IGP (instead there's primary/backup
>uplink)
>on edge, and not using H.FIB (with cef table output-chain build favor
>convergence-speed) and we're running full BGP table on edge routers,
>anyone
>with experi
Thank you all; so let me just see if I got this right.
If we're not loadbalancing with IGP (instead there's primary/backup uplink)
on edge, and not using H.FIB (with cef table output-chain build favor
convergence-speed) and we're running full BGP table on edge routers, anyone
with experience on ho
for PIC Core
IP2IP hacks it using loadbalance adjacencies.
VPNv4 requires recirc.
PIC Edge is a different story since we are pre-installing the backup path
like FRR
On Fri, Apr 25, 2014 at 1:03 PM, Saku Ytti wrote:
> On (2014-04-25 10:56 -0400), Pete Lumbis wrote:
>
> > The difference in comm
Gotcha. My apologize for misunderstanding. Living in TAC makes me assume
nothing works the way people want it to :)
On Fri, Apr 25, 2014 at 12:59 PM, Gert Doering wrote:
> Hi,
>
> On Fri, Apr 25, 2014 at 12:45:22PM -0400, Pete Lumbis wrote:
> > Leave default behavior, don't get new features, re
On (2014-04-25 10:56 -0400), Pete Lumbis wrote:
> The difference in commands is mainly in relation to software/memory. This
> has the biggest impact on software based platforms like the 7200 but you'll
> see an uptick in RP/SP memory usage by enabling, but only changes how
> routes are built in ha
Hi,
On Fri, Apr 25, 2014 at 12:45:22PM -0400, Pete Lumbis wrote:
> Leave default behavior, don't get new features, require users to enable
> command to get the thing they want
>
> or
>
> automatically change the way we do things, increase RP memory usage and
> make people VERY unhappy when they
Leave default behavior, don't get new features, require users to enable
command to get the thing they want
or
automatically change the way we do things, increase RP memory usage and
make people VERY unhappy when they upgrade and run into problems they
didn't expect.
It's a no-win situation
On
Hi,
On Fri, Apr 25, 2014 at 10:56:47AM -0400, Pete Lumbis wrote:
> Hierarchical FIB is not enabled by default on 7600 and you must enable "cef
> table output-chain build favor convergence-speed" like you mention.
I'm truly amazed. At least the command is available on 6500 as well.
*rub eyes*
T
Hierarchical FIB is not enabled by default on 7600 and you must enable "cef
table output-chain build favor convergence-speed" like you mention.
Turning it on should have no impact. Turning it off could see a route
reprogram event and could cause packet loss while it happens. As with
everything, us
Hello,
Does 7600 runs Hierachical FIB by default?
The command to enable this should be:
*cef table output-chain build favor convergence-**speed*
The default on 7600 seems to be:
*cef table output-chain build favor default*
The document says:
"General Characteristics
Use the *cef table outp
20 matches
Mail list logo
