Hello author, NetEng department here, good article, thanks!
I'm sad to say this problem affects IPv4 too and its not that uncommon when using layer 3 switches. The TCAM allocation for IPv4/6 is usually a fraction of the size allocated for MAC addresses.
Also a big annoyance of mine is that TCAM space is something few people graph by default on their NMS system. Case in point: we have Cacti as a backup NMS because it can graph >anything< that is a number. Some L3 switches have a MIB from the vendor that reports TCAM usage, others from the same vendor use a different MIB, and others from the same vendor don't expose the stats via SNMP at all and we have to scrape them from the CLI! So the vendors don't make it easy for an operator to track a limited and critical resource of a layer 3 switch. I urge everyone to graph their switches TCAM usage however they can.
> Also a big annoyance of mine is that TCAM space is something few people graph by default on their NMS system. [...]
This (and really everything else you mention) is one thing I like about doing NetEng at FB.
We collect all this info (and anything else you can think of) from every network device, try to normalize it, and then build tooling that watches for and reacts to any anomalies.
(as far as I can tell the events in the article were from 2015 and the vendor involved was thrown out in the aftermath--this was one of many bugs)
Nope, it's just that many of her pieces carry a tone of numerous implications that those with whom she works (eg coworkers and such), are idiots. She has a condescending tone which I don't care for. That is all.
