nanog mailing list archives
RE: Getting pretty close to default IPv4 route maximum for 6500/7600 routers.
From: "Tony Wicks" <tony () wicks co nz>
Date: Wed, 11 Jun 2014 13:44:36 +1200
My 2c: The obvious thing for me is if people are running a full ipv4 route table on a box only just capable of handling one single table of that size, then really now is the time to asses if you really need to hold that table or just drop to default +internal+peers. If you have multiple up streams and you are using the route tables to do your route selection then great, but that means you need at least 1M capability now, and really 2+ should be your target. In my experience people running a full table on a small capability box normally don't actually need to carry it, or they just need a bigger box.
Current thread:
- Re: Getting pretty close to default IPv4 route maximum for 6500/7600 routers., (continued)
- Re: Getting pretty close to default IPv4 route maximum for 6500/7600 routers. Blake Hudson (Jun 10)
- Re: Getting pretty close to default IPv4 route maximum for 6500/7600 routers. Ćukasz Bromirski (Jun 10)
- Re: Getting pretty close to default IPv4 route maximum for 6500/7600 routers. Mark Tinka (Jun 10)
- Re: Getting pretty close to default IPv4 route maximum for 6500/7600 routers. joel jaeggli (Jun 10)
- Re: Getting pretty close to default IPv4 route maximum for 6500/7600 routers. Blake Hudson (Jun 10)
- Re: Getting pretty close to default IPv4 route maximum for 6500/7600 routers. Matthew Petach (Jun 10)
- Re: Getting pretty close to default IPv4 route maximum for 6500/7600 routers. Blake Hudson (Jun 11)
- Re: Getting pretty close to default IPv4 route maximum for 6500/7600 routers. Blake Hudson (Jun 10)
- Re: Getting pretty close to default IPv4 route maximum for 6500/7600 routers. Saku Ytti (Jun 10)
- Re: Getting pretty close to default IPv4 route maximum for 6500/7600 routers. Jimmy Hess (Jun 11)
- RE: Getting pretty close to default IPv4 route maximum for 6500/7600 routers. John van Oppen (Jun 10)