Cisco Sup8-E ip routing table / Mac Address table current utilization

[ifabrizio]

Hi to All,

I need to calculate the current memory usage about the ip routing table, we use static routes and OSPF.

And also the current memory usage about the Mac address table.

Follows the Catalyst 4500E sh Module:

Chassis Type : WS-C4510R+E

Power consumed by backplane : 40 Watts

Mod Ports Card Type Model Serial No.
---+-----+--------------------------------------+------------------+-----------
2 12 10GE SFP+ WS-X4712-SFP+E xxxxxx
3 48 10/100/1000BaseT EEE (RJ45) WS-X4748-RJ45-E xxxxxxx
4 48 10/100/1000BaseT EEE (RJ45) WS-X4748-RJ45-E xxxxxxxx
5 8 Sup 8-E 10GE (SFP+), 1000BaseX (SFP) WS-X45-SUP8-E xxxxxxx
6 8 Sup 8-E 10GE (SFP+), 1000BaseX (SFP) WS-X45-SUP8-E xxxxxxx
7 48 10/100/1000BaseT Premium POE E Series WS-X4748-RJ45V+E xxxxxxxxxx
8 48 10/100/1000BaseT Premium POE E Series WS-X4748-RJ45V+E xxxxxxxxxxxx
9 48 10/100/1000BaseT EEE (RJ45) WS-X4748-RJ45-E xxxxxxxxxxxxx
10 48 10/100/1000BaseT EEE (RJ45) WS-X4748-RJ45-E xxxxxxxxxxxxxx

Cause I am planning to substitute it with a 9400 or a more chepest 9300 8 switches stack. The 9300 has a ip route table size of 32k the 9400 routing table size is 524k. Our 4500 have 256k.

Same considerations about the Mac address table size: the 9400 has 32k the 9300 has 32k the 4500 55k.

How I can do it?

Bye,

JF

[Reza Sharifi]

Hi,

A good replacement for the 4500 is the 9400. I personally would not replace the 4500 with 8 9300 stacked. With stacking, any switch in the stack can have a problem, and that can bring down the whole stack. On the other hand, both the 4500 and 9400 switches are pretty solid devices, especially with multiple PSUs and dual SUPs running SSO.

HTH

[ifabrizio]

Hi Reza,

Thank you for your help. Could you pls explain well? As far as I know, every switch in the stack has a copy of the configuration, and if the switch with the highest priority fails, the one with the next highest priority takes over the stack. Of course the connections on the failed switch are lost, as for a possible module of a 9400. is it correct?

[Reza Sharifi]

Hi,

In theory, that is correct. If a stack is configured with the correct priority, when one switch fails, the second highest priority should take over, and that is true most of the time, but I also have seen cases where one switch starts having issues and the entire stack becomes useless. The only thing that fixes the problem at that time is rebooting the whole stack. On the other hand, when a module in a mudular switch goes bad, it usually only affects that one blade and not the entire switch. One other thing, as far as I know, there is no way to upgrade IOS on a stack without rebooting the whole stack, but I know for a fact that with the 4500 and 9400 dual sups, you can reboot one sup at a time with no user downtime. This is just my opinion and experience, and I am sure others have different opinions.

HTH  

[Joseph W. Doherty]

Unsure, but if your sup8 accepts:

show platform tcam utilization asic all

[Joseph W. Doherty]

Oh, possibly also these commands:

show mac address-table count

show tcam counts

[ifabrizio]

Hi Joseph,

Thank you for you help. Only the show mac address-table count works on Sup8E:

show mac address-table count
MAC Entries for all vlans:
Dynamic Unicast Address Count: 1298
Static Unicast Address (User-defined) Count: 111
Static Unicast Address (System-defined) Count: 1
Total Unicast MAC Addresses In Use: 1410
Total Unicast MAC Addresses Available: 55000
Multicast MAC Address Count: 196
Total Multicast MAC Addresses Available: 32768

What is the unit of measurement used by the command?

[Joseph W. Doherty]

MAC addresses.

[MHM Cisco World]

Instead of stack 9300 use 9400 which is modular SW can add what you want of ports with different BW.

9400 is distributor and access SW like 4500 SW.

And contact cisco they have excellent sales engineer for more info

MHM

[ifabrizio]

Hi MHM tank you for your Help. I agree with you reading the Cisco subtitution roedmap from 4500 the elecyed product should be the 9400.

But the 9400 is very expensive. For example this configuration:

Items	P/N		Description
1	C9410R (=)		Cisco Catalyst 9400 Series 10 slot chassis
1	C9400X-SUP-2(=)		Cisco Catalyst 9400 Series Supervisor 2 Module
1	C9400X-SUP-2/2		Cisco Catalyst 9400 Series Redundant Supervisor 2 Module
1	C9400-LC-48UX (=)		Cisco Catalyst 9400 Series 48-Port UPOE w/ 24-port 10G mGig, 24-port 1G RJ-45
5	C9400-LC-48P (=)		Cisco Catalyst 9400 Series 48-Port POE+ 10/100/1000 (RJ-45)
1	C9400-LC-24XS (=)		Cisco Catalyst 9400 Series 24-Port 10 Gigabit Ethernet (SFP+)
4	QSFP-40G-CSR-S		SFP 40gbps da aggingere in offerta
2	C9400-PWR-3200AC (=)		Cisco Catalyst 9400 Series 3200W AC Power Supply da aggiungere in offerta
2	CAB-CEE77-C19-EU		Europe-Cable da aggiungere in offerta

It costs 80KEur, comparing the performance data, taken from the Cisco website, it doesn't seem to me that very big differences emerge. If we exclude the size of the Mac address table and the IP v4 routing table.

Follows the performance data comaparison between 9300 and 9400, what do you think about? Are the performances of the two products comparable? :

Featues	Catalyst 9300 Switches (C9300)	Catalyst 9400 Series Switches
Product Page URL	http://www.cisco.com/c/en/us/products/switches/catalyst-9300-series-switches/index.html	https://www.cisco.com/c/en/us/products/switches/catalyst-9400-series-switches/index.html
Key Features
Target deployments	Small to large enterprise	Small to large enterprise
Stacking	Yes	Yes
SD-Access	Cisco DNA Center/SD-Access	Cisco DNA Center/SD-Access
Advanced security and analytics	Yes	Yes
Capacity
Port quantity	24-48 x 1/2.5/5/10 G, Multigigabit, 1G SFP	up to 192 x Multigigabit/10G/5G/2.5G/1G, 384 x 10/100/1000BASE-T, 200 x SFP+/SFP, 4x 100G/40G
Port types	40G, 25G, 10G, 1G fiber, Multigigabit, 10G/5G/2.5G/1G, 10/100/1000BASE-T copper	Multigigabit, 10G/5G/2.5G, 10/100/1000BASE-T
Switching capacity	208 Gbps - 640 Gbps	80-480 Gbps/slot
Stacking/chassis bandwidth	688 Gbps - 1120 Gbps	480 Gbps-3.8 Tbps
IPv4 routes	32k	524k
IPv6 routes	16k	256k
Flash memory installed size	16 GB	16 GB
Wireless bandwidth	96 Gbps	96 Gbps
Networking
Advanced switching	Layer 2/3	Layer 2/3
Jumbo frame support	9198 bytes	9198 bytes
MAC address table size	32k-64k entries	32k entries
Power
Integrated PoE	Yes	Yes
PoE/PoE+/UPOE	90W UPOE+	60W UPOE
PoE budget	1800W	7200W
Power redundancy	Optional	N+N optional
Power redundancy scheme	1+1	N+N/N+1
Power provided	350-2200W	3200W
Nominal voltage	AC 100/240V	AC 100/240V
Environment
Humidity range operating	10-95% (noncondensing)	10-95% (noncondensing)
Maximum operating temperature	113°F	109°F
Minimum operating temperature	23°F	27°F
Maximum storage temperature	158°F	167°F
Minimum storage temperature	-40°F	-40°F
Form factor
Configuration	Fixed, stackable	Modular
Height (rack units)	1 RU	10/13 RU
Slots free quantity	8	8/11
Slots total quantity	8	10/13
Depth	16.1-19.1 in	17.3 in
Height	1.73 in	17.41/22.61 in
Width	17.5 in	16.3 in
Weight	16-20 lb	63/65 lb
Security
Encrypted Traffic Analytics	Yes	Yes
Trustworthy systems	Yes	Yes
Encryption protocols	AES-256/MACsec-256, SSH, TLS, IPsec	AES-256/MACsec-256, SSH, TLS, IPsec
MPLS	Yes	Yes
IGMP snooping	Yes	Yes
NetFlow	Yes	Yes
Programmability
NETCONF/YANG	Yes	Yes
Python	Yes	Yes
Containers	Yes	Yes
Software
Operating system	Cisco IOS XE	Cisco IOS XE
License type	Perpetual plus subscription	Perpetual plus subscription
Support
Warranty	E-LLW	E-LLW
Service	NBD delivery of replacement hardware where available	NBD delivery of replacement hardware where available
Support full contract period	90 days of 8x5 Cisco TAC support	90 days of 8x5 Cisco TAC support

[MHM Cisco World]

sorry can help you alot in this case 
contact cisco sale engineer it better 

Goodluck

MHM

[Joseph W. Doherty]

Although OP didn't ask for stack vs. chassis comparisons, that has come up.

Others' replies recommend a chassis replacement as better than a stack.  (They generally are, IMO too.)

Op notes chassis is much more expensive.  Sometimes, though, a chassis is less expensive.  For example, a chassis with lots of line cards without 2nd sup.  Those cases, though, usually aren't much less expensive.

What can matter much is how this particular L3 switch will be used.  Only then can you really determine what's actually needed, what's nice to have, and price/value.

Be cautious of the two simplest solutions which can be x number of bps ports for least cost or allowing seller to determine what you should have.

Spend some time on analysis, and if inexperienced, consider contracting assistance.

[ifabrizio]

Dear All,

Apologies if I get off topic, but the main reason I'm trying to measure IP address table and Mac address table, current usage, is why I'm comparing 9400 model switches to 9300. I'll open a new post about it.

Thank you all again for your valuable advice.

Bye,

JF