10-12-2014 08:29 PM - edited 03-07-2019 09:04 PM
Hi,
I'm working through a QoS configuration for the 6880-X-LE with 6800Ia FEXs. The QoS configuration, policymap, classes, ACLS etc have all been accepted fine.
I can apply a service policy to an interface but when I do I get the following errors come up:
*Oct 13 03:13:55.832: %EARL_CM-SW1-5-NOL4OP: Configured L4OPs exceeds the programmable limit for tcam= 0
*Oct 13 03:13:55.828: %EARL_CM-SW2_STBY-5-NOL4OP: Configured L4OPs exceeds the programmable limit for tcam= 0
*Oct 13 03:13:58.360: %QM-SW1-4-TCAM_ENTRY: Hardware TCAM entry programming failed for switch 1 slot 5 intf Gi141/1/0/1 dir IN: <CONFIG_UPDATE_REQ> TCAM Req Error: FAIL (4): Low TCAM Entries (1)
*Oct 13 03:13:58.360: %QM-SW1-4-TCAM_ENTRY: Hardware TCAM entry programming failed for switch 2 slot 5 intf Gi141/1/0/1 dir IN: <CONFIG_UPDATE_REQ> TCAM Req Error: FAIL (4): Low TCAM Entries (1)
*Oct 13 03:13:58.360: %QM-SW1-4-TCAM_ENTRY: Hardware TCAM entry programming failed for switch 1 slot 5 intf Gi141/1/0/1 dir IN: <CONFIG_UPDATE_REQ> TCAM Req Error: FAIL (4): Low TCAM Entries (1)
*Oct 13 03:13:58.360: %QM-SW1-4-TCAM_ENTRY: Hardware TCAM entry programming failed for switch 2 slot 5 intf Gi141/1/0/1 dir IN: <CONFIG_UPDATE_REQ> TCAM Req Error: FAIL (4): Low TCAM Entries (1)
*Oct 13 03:13:58.360: %QM-SW1-4-TCAM_ENTRY: Hardware TCAM entry programming failed for switch 1 slot 5 intf Gi141/1/0/1 dir IN: <CONFIG_UPDATE_REQ> TCAM Req Error: FAIL (4): Low TCAM Entries (1)
*Oct 13 03:13:58.360: %QM-SW1-4-TCAM_ENTRY: Hardware TCAM entry programming failed for switch 2 slot 5 intf Gi141/1/0/1 dir IN: <CONFIG_UPDATE_REQ> TCAM Req Error: FAIL (4): Low TCAM Entries (1)
*Oct 13 03:13:58.360: %QM-SW1-4-TCAM_ENTRY: Hardware TCAM entry programming failed for switch 1 slot 5 intf Gi141/1/0/1 dir IN: <CONFIG_UPDATE_REQ> TCAM Req Error: FAIL (4): Low TCAM Entries (1)
*Oct 13 03:13:58.360: %QM-SW1-4-TCAM_ENTRY: Hardware TCAM entry programming failed for switch 2 slot 5 intf Gi141/1/0/1 dir IN: <CONFIG_UPDATE_REQ> TCAM Req Error: FAIL (4): Low TCAM Entries (1)
*Oct 13 03:13:58.360: %QM-SW1-4-TCAM_ENTRY: Hardware TCAM entry programming failed for switch 1 slot 5 intf Gi141/1/0/1 dir IN: <CONFIG_UPDATE_REQ> TCAM Req Error: FAIL (4): Low TCAM Entries (1)
*Oct 13 03:13:58.360: %QM-SW1-4-TCAM_ENTRY: Hardware TCAM entry programming failed for switch 2 slot 5 intf Gi141/1/0/1 dir IN: <CONFIG_UPDATE_REQ> TCAM Req Error: FAIL (4): Low TCAM Entries (1)
I've checked the QoS policer quota's and they look OK. Is there something else I should be looking at??
NewLevel4Switch#sh platform hardware capacity qos
QoS Policer Resources
Aggregate policers: Sw/Mod Total Used %Used
1/5 16384 16 1%
2/5 16384 16 1%
Microflow policer configurations: Sw/Mod Total Used %Used
1/5 128 1 1%
2/5 128 1 1%
Netflow policer configurations: Sw/Mod Total Used %Used
1/5 384 0 0%
2/5 384 0 0%
Aggregate policer configurations: Sw/Mod Total Used %Used
1/5 1024 8 1%
2/5 1024 8 1%
Distributed policers: Total Used %Used
4096 1 1%
QoS Tcam Entries: Sw/Mod Total Used %Used
1/5 16384 1171 7%
2/5 16384 1171 7%
Thanks,
David.
Solved! Go to Solution.
10-08-2015 09:07 AM
What sort of supervisor do you have in your system - sup32/720/2T? On 720 (and lower, I believe) none of these would use a LOU. On a sup2T based system, these would use 3 registers - each unique DSCP value requires one register.
Are you seeing problems with just this ACL in play?
Regards,
Aninda
10-21-2014 08:01 PM
Hi David,
I apologize for the late response. I don't have a concrete answer for you yet, but I have been playing around a bit with the 720s with regards to L4Op programming.
To me, it appears that our logic for the 720s is significantly different from the 2Ts (or the 6880s). The capmap limit of 9 remains the same, however:
AK-Sup720-sp#show mls acl capmap
Capability Mapping Table:
Meaning of the Letters:
LOU = this location is pointing to a LOU
TCP = this location is pointing to a TCP_FLAG location
S = Source ---- D = Destination, A = A LOU register , B = B LOU register
Index [81:80] loc[9] loc[8] loc[7] loc[6] loc[5] loc[4] loc[3] loc[2] loc[1] loc[0]
--- --- -------- -------- -------- -------- -------- -------- -------- -------- -------- --------
1 0 INVALID INVALID INVALID INVALID INVALID INVALID INVALID INVALID INVALID LOU 0_DA
The difference, I believe, is how we program DSCP values. Matching on a DSCP value in an access-list would program this in a LOU register and get referenced in the capmap table in the 2T or 6880 based systems. However, on a sup720 based system, I do not see this happening. This is why you did not hit the 9 entry limit on your 720 based system.
I'll keep you posted with what I find. Again, I'm sorry for the delay.
Regards,
Aninda
10-08-2015 08:12 AM
10-08-2015 08:23 AM
Hi Mike,
Are you referring to CSCuc81745? As I had stated earlier, that is not a *fix*. It just makes reporting of such an issue easier to understand. The 9 L4Op limit is still present.
Regards,
Aninda
10-08-2015 09:19 AM
no its much longer i have serveral matching af11-43
Find answers to your questions by entering keywords or phrases in the Search bar above. New here? Use these resources to familiarize yourself with the community: