Here's the growth over time: <a href="http://www.cidr-report.org/cgi-bin/plota?file=%2fvar%2fdata%2fbgp%2fas2.0%2fbgp-active%2etxt&descr=Active%20BGP%20entries%20%28FIB%29&ylabel=Active%20BGP%20entries%20%28FIB%29&with=step" rel="nofollow">http://www.cidr-report.org/cgi-bin/plota?file=%2fvar%2fdata%...</a><p>And here's the past week. I suspect the big dip is where things actually broke...a little higher than 768k: <a href="http://www.cidr-report.org/cgi-bin/plota?file=%2Fvar%2Fdata%2Fbgp%2Fas2.0%2Fbgp-active.txt&descr=Active+BGP+entries+%28FIB%29&ylabel=Active+BGP+entries+%28FIB%29&range=Week&StartDate=&EndDate=&yrange=Auto&ymin=&ymax=&Width=1&Height=1&with=Step&color=auto&logscale=linear" rel="nofollow">http://www.cidr-report.org/cgi-bin/plota?file=%2Fvar%2Fdata%...</a><p>I believe there's another hardcoded hurdle at 1M IPV4 routes with some existing routers, like the ASR1001.<p>Guess IPV6 adoption isn't slowing IPV4 growth much.
I remember setting up BGP for a company, back in 1998. We had 2 T1's for about 5000 employees. There were about 50K routes total (maybe less?) How times have changed...
The number of people running sup720-3bxl or similar on the Cisco 6500/7600, with total FIB capacity of 1 million, is still way too high. Way too many of those things out there taking a full table. We ran into this with people who had not adjusted the balance between RAM usage on ipv4 vs ipv6 when the global routing table hit 512k distinct v4 routes, causing many peoples' 6500/7600s to lock up.<p>You might say "okay, but the v6 table is not really big right now, so adjust the balance to 900k v4 and 100k v6 routes". But in reality on these ancient platforms each v6 route takes up a great deal more RAM than a v4 route.<p>If you have a router with 1 million FIB capacity, the time to replace it was five years ago. If you still have one running <i>now</i>, time to hit the panic button and replace it urgently with something like a Juniper MX80, MX104, MX204, etc.
> Many ISP and other organizations had provisioned the size of the memory for their router TCAMs for a limit of 512K route entries, and some older routers suffered memory overflows that caused their CPUs to crash.<p>> Engineers and network administrators scrambled to apply emergency firmware patches to set it to a new upper limit. In many cases, that upper limit was 768k entries.<p>Is there some technical reason for the emergency patch not to have increased the limit to a much higher and future-proof threshold?<p>In 2014 it shouldn't have been hard to predict that the new 768k would have been hit in just a few years.
It feels so strange that 768k entities is large enough to break infrastructure.<p>In my day to day I’ll work on tables with billions of rows with no issue.
the amount of popups on this site wont let you just bloody read the damn article. what were you thinking by posting that link? are you trying to troll us?