Is it time for this nanog thread again?
http://www.merit.edu/mail.archives/nanog/msg02822.html
srs
On Fri, Feb 29, 2008 at 11:45 PM, Henry Futzenburger
<[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> 1. Accept only default and partial routes from upstream.
> a. Accept directly-connected routes, reject everyth
Henry,
In my past experience with the SUP2/MSFC2 combo you are best off with
option 2. Minimize the FIB entry of what you control like BGP route
entries. You never know what can happen to cause the FIB to run up again
and cause the CPU to spike.
Manolo
Henry Futzenburger wrote:
I am hopi
On Fri, 29 Feb 2008, Henry Futzenburger wrote:
> 2. Accept only default and RIR minimum routes from upstream.
> a. Filter based on RIR minimums, rely on default for unaggregated
> routes.
> b. Assume a reduction of about 50,000-100,000 total routes.
>
> Does anyone have any opinions as t
I am hoping to help an ISP keep a couple of Cisco 6500's with SUP2's in
production for a while longer. They are currently just about at the FIB
limit of 250,000 entries, mostly composed of BGP routes. I'm considering
two alternatives to reduce the number of entries.
1. Accept only default and pa
