cancel
Showing results for 
Search instead for 
Did you mean: 
cancel
2411
Views
0
Helpful
19
Replies
Highlighted
Beginner

6880 Port policy map - TCAM error re configured L4OPs

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.

 

19 REPLIES 19
Highlighted

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

Highlighted

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

Highlighted

has this been fixed or will there always be a 9 L4op limit on the 6880 , im running 15.1(2)SY6 and still have the issue even though it shows fixed versions of codes for this bug.

 

 

Highlighted

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

Highlighted

no its much longer i have serveral matching af11-43

 
so af11,12,13,21,22,23,31,32,33,41,42,42 cs1,cs2,cs3,cs4 and cs5 and ef.  I suppose i could make it af11,21,31,41,cs1,cs2,cs3,cs4,cs5 ef still puts me one over. but new recommended qos recommends that
 
af11 bulk, af21 priority, af31 streaming video, af41 interactive video, cs1 scavenger, cs2 net mgmt, cs3 call signalling, cs4 some sort of video, cs5 a different video and ef voice.
Content for Community-Ad