[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
On Wed, Aug 29, 2007 at 06:48:43PM -0400, Jon Lewis wrote:
On Mon, 27 Aug 2007, David Conrad wrote:
For a few more months. What are upgrade cycles like again? How common
are the MSFC2s?
I think we'll find out in a few months, when the internet breaks in a
whole
On 8/28/07 5:11 PM, Lincoln Dale [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
agree that this isn't ideal, however Cisco has always been very specific
about the h/w FIB adjacency table sizes on the hardware in question.
i know that vendor bashing is a sport in this list, but
The problem is that Cisco
On Mon, 27 Aug 2007, David Conrad wrote:
For a few more months. What are upgrade cycles like again? How common are
the MSFC2s?
I think we'll find out in a few months, when the internet breaks in a
whole bunch of places where the admins aren't aware of this issue or
operations have been
On Wed, Aug 29, 2007 at 06:48:43PM -0400, Jon Lewis wrote:
On Mon, 27 Aug 2007, David Conrad wrote:
For a few more months. What are upgrade cycles like again? How common
are the MSFC2s?
I think we'll find out in a few months, when the internet breaks in a
whole bunch of places
On Thu, Aug 30, 2007, [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Anyone want to bet there will be people posting to nanog and cisco-nsp in
a few months asking why either the CPU load on their Sup2's has suddenly
shot up or why they keep noticing parts of the internet have gone
unreachable?...oblivious
On 8/27/07, Deepak Jain [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
an MSFC2 can
hold 256,000 entries in its FIB of which 12,000 are reserved for
Multicast. I do not know if the 12,000 can be set to serve the general
purpose.
The MSFC2 therefore can server 244,000 routes without uRPF turned on.
I'm hit
On Tue, 28 Aug 2007 15:11:52 -0400
William Herrin [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
On 8/27/07, Deepak Jain [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
an MSFC2 can
hold 256,000 entries in its FIB of which 12,000 are reserved for
Multicast. I do not know if the 12,000 can be set to serve the general
purpose.
Bill,
[...]
2. Once the limit is reached, excess routes will fail over to software
switching. TAC did not specify how routes are designated as excess.
I'm not sure if the Sup2's handle this case differently from the
Sup720s we were using, but, in our case, when we reached the ceilign
the
[...]
2. Once the limit is reached, excess routes will fail over to software
switching. TAC did not specify how routes are designated as excess.
most-specific-prefixes first. it has to be this way due to the way a TCAM
search works.
I'm not sure if the Sup2's handle this case differently
agree that this isn't ideal, however Cisco has always been very specific
about the h/w FIB adjacency table sizes on the hardware in question.
i know that vendor bashing is a sport in this list, but
Can you please point out where I can find this information ...
The only place I found
agree that this isn't ideal, however Cisco has always been very specific
about the h/w FIB adjacency table sizes on the hardware in question.
i know that vendor bashing is a sport in this list, but
Can you please point out where I can find this information ...
The Sup720 datasheet
On Wed, 29 Aug 2007, Lincoln Dale wrote:
reason i ask is that since circa. 12.2(18)SXF9 (i.e. back in 2005), there has
One of the problems with this is that the people that have the tendency of
not knowing their hardware limitations are the same people that will be
running SXD because they
Heya,
My understanding is that there are no known algorithms for fast
updates (and particularly withdrawals) on aggregated FIBs, especially
if those FIBs are stored in CIDR form. This is the prime reason why
all those Cisco 65xx/76xx with MSFC2/PFC2 will be worthless junk in a
couple of
On Mon, 27 Aug 2007, Eric Gauthier wrote:
Do we have a real date for when this occurs? If you aren't doing uRPF, I
thought they ran up to 256,000 routes. (I may not recall correctly)
We ran into this hiccup a few months ago on a Sup720-3B (well, a 3BXL which
mistakenly had a 3B card in the
According to this link, which alleges to be from cisco-nsp, an MSFC2 can
hold 256,000 entries in its FIB of which 12,000 are reserved for
Multicast. I do not know if the 12,000 can be set to serve the general
purpose.
The MSFC2 therefore can server 244,000 routes without uRPF turned on.
On Aug 27, 2007, at 2:49 PM, Deepak Jain wrote:
According to this link, which alleges to be from cisco-nsp, an
MSFC2 can hold 256,000 entries in its FIB of which 12,000 are
reserved for Multicast. I do not know if the 12,000 can be set to
serve the general purpose.
The MSFC2 therefore
David Conrad wrote:
On Aug 27, 2007, at 2:49 PM, Deepak Jain wrote:
According to this link, which alleges to be from cisco-nsp, an MSFC2
can hold 256,000 entries in its FIB of which 12,000 are reserved for
Multicast. I do not know if the 12,000 can be set to serve the general
purpose.
On Mon, 27 Aug 2007, David Conrad wrote:
Any reasonably valid way of predicting when we'll hit 244,000 routes in the
default-free zone?
Um?
Real Soon Now?
...
I must be missing something obvious (or should I be dusting off my unused Y2K
survival gear?)
Unlike Y2K, the end of the useful
Jon,
On Aug 27, 2007, at 5:50 PM, Jon Lewis wrote:
Any reasonably valid way of predicting when we'll hit 244,000
routes in the default-free zone?
Real Soon Now?
According to Geoff, the BGP table is growing at around 3500 routes
per month, so we're looking at blowing out MSFC2s in about 3
On Mon, 27 Aug 2007, Jon Lewis wrote:
Of course there are other reasons to upgrade (better CPU, MPLS, IPv6, etc.),
Now if this was a dust old MSFC2 that was like 5 years old I'd say ok.
The problem is twofold:
1. Cisco is still selling the 7600 with the Sup32 bundle (which is
what we
At 8:50 PM -0400 8/27/07, Jon Lewis wrote:
Unlike Y2K, the end of the useful service life up the Sup2 can easily be
pushed further away in time.
ASnum NetsNow NetsAggrNetGain % GainDescription
There's really only 151129 routes you need to have full routes.
On Tue, 28 Aug 2007, Chris L. Morrow wrote:
On Mon, 27 Aug 2007, John A. Kilpatrick wrote:
a reasonable solution to this problem - especially if they want to keep
selling the 7600 as a router.
and here I always looked at the 6500 as a switch...
And the 7600 is a router?
:)
On Mon, 27 Aug 2007, John A. Kilpatrick wrote:
a reasonable solution to this problem - especially if they want to keep
selling the 7600 as a router.
and here I always looked at the 6500 as a switch...
On Mon, 27 Aug 2007, John A. Kilpatrick wrote:
1. Cisco is still selling the 7600 with the Sup32 bundle (which is what
we bought) and saying you can take a full route table on it. I could already
do MPLS and IPv6 on this box. This is pretty new hardware.
Where are they saying that? The
On Tue, 28 Aug 2007, Chris L. Morrow wrote:
On Tue, 28 Aug 2007, Chris L. Morrow wrote:
On Mon, 27 Aug 2007, John A. Kilpatrick wrote:
a reasonable solution to this problem - especially if they want to keep
selling the 7600 as a router.
and here I always looked at the 6500 as a switch...
On Mon, 27 Aug 2007, Jon Lewis wrote:
On Tue, 28 Aug 2007, Chris L. Morrow wrote:
On Mon, 27 Aug 2007, John A. Kilpatrick wrote:
a reasonable solution to this problem - especially if they want to keep
selling the 7600 as a router.
and here I always looked at the 6500 as a switch...
On Tue, 28 Aug 2007, Chris L. Morrow wrote:
And the 7600 is a router?
:)
I thought it was just a 6500 that sommeone got drunk and tipped over on
it's side, like a cow...
I still needle my Cisco rep about that from time to time. IMHO, the
6500/7600 split was one of the dumbest, most
On 8/27/07, Justin M. Streiner [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
I thought it was just a 6500 that sommeone got drunk and tipped over on
it's side, like a cow...
http://farm.tucows.com/images/2006/07/cow_tipping.jpg :D
On Mon, 27 Aug 2007, Jon Lewis wrote:
On Tue, 28 Aug 2007, Chris L. Morrow wrote:
I thought it was just a 6500 that sommeone got drunk and tipped over on
it's side, like a cow...
And tagged with some white paint.
Though if you've kept up with the latest IOS developments, cisco is
1. Cisco is still selling the 7600 with the Sup32 bundle (which is what
we bought) and saying you can take a full route table on it. I could
already do MPLS and IPv6 on this box. This is pretty new hardware.
Where are they saying that? The Sup32 sounded great until it became clear
that
On Mon, 27 Aug 2007, Hex Star wrote:
On 8/27/07, Justin M. Streiner [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
I thought it was just a 6500 that sommeone got drunk and tipped over on
it's side, like a cow...
http://farm.tucows.com/images/2006/07/cow_tipping.jpg :D
While its occasionally
On 8/27/07 7:36 PM, Chris L. Morrow
[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
and here I always looked at the 6500 as a switch...
It switches, it routes, it makes julienne fries...
--
John A. Kilpatrick
[EMAIL PROTECTED]Email| http://www.hypergeek.net/
On Mon, 27 Aug 2007, Jon Lewis wrote:
Though if you've kept up with the latest IOS developments, cisco is
finally differentiating the platforms we've assumed for years were only
different in angle and paint. 6500's won't get to run the newest 7600
code.
I think Cisco is coming to their
On 8/27/07 9:39 PM, Donald Stahl [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Thankfully I don't need to take a full table on these routers and their
forwarding speed among the few ports I have is more important than the FIB
size. That said- if I did need the full table I would be royally ticked
off at Cisco
On Mon, 27 Aug 2007, Deepak Jain wrote:
Where do the FIBs break on older 12000 series and M-series routers? (or
pick the *next* most popular piece of network equipment that is used in
full-routes scenarios).
On the 12000, I'd give the following observations on the state of the
older
My understanding is that there are no known algorithms for fast
updates (and particularly withdrawals) on aggregated FIBs, especially
if those FIBs are stored in CIDR form. This is the prime reason why
all those Cisco 65xx/76xx with MSFC2/PFC2 will be worthless junk in a
couple of months.
Do
36 matches
Mail list logo
