6500 TCAM usage for MPLS

Question

Hello!
I'm using cat6500 WS-SUP720-3BXL as BGP router for 3 full view upstream an several clients. Different clients want to use different upstream for output traffic, but output should be redundant . So I should implement VRF + BGP.
I have done the following config:
=-=-=-=-=-=
ip vrf Upsream1
rd Y:Z
     import map Bacup1-rmap
route-target export Y:Z
route-target import N:M
ip vrf Upsream2
rd N:M
import map Bacup2-rmap
route-target import Y:Z
route-target export N:M
router bgp XXX
  address-family ipv4 vrf Upsream1
  neighbor Y.Y.Y.Y remote-as ZZZ
  neighbor description  GoodUplink
  address-family ipv4 vrf Upsream2
  neighbor N.N.N.N remote-as MMM
  neighbor description  BadUplink
=-=-=-=-=-=
after loading full view in to table I get error
MLSCEF-SP-7-FIB_EXCEPTION: FIB TCAM exception, Some entries will be
software switched
#show platform hardware capacity forwarding
L3 Forwarding Resources
FIB TCAM usage:                     Total        Used       %Used
72 bits (IPv4, MPLS, EoM)     1032192      1002192         95%
144 bits (IP mcast, IPv6)        8192           8          1%
detail:      Protocol                    Used       %Used
IPv4                      600035         64%
MPLS                       32992          31%
=-=-=-=-=-=
Command
#show mpls forwarding-table
show all routes with label.
=-=-=-=-=-=
Question: is can I some how use VRF+BGP but disable TCAM MPLS table usage, and label generation  for my platform?
Cisco say
Ipv4 routes ---1 TCAM entry
ipv4 routes(vpn/vrf) -- 1 TCAM entry
ipv4 multicast -- 2 TCAM entry
ipv6 (anycast/unicast) -- 2 TCAM entry
MPLS labels --  1 TCAM entry
But look like BGP+VRF =2 TCAM entry.
Is there any workaround to use 1 TCAM entry for one route in VRF from BGP for 6500?
Thank you for answer!

Answer 1

Hello! thanks for the tips. I found on the same forum an interesting solution of the problem.
MPLS VPN—Per VRF Label
http://www.cisco.com/en/US/docs/ios/mpls/configuration/guide/mp_vpn_per_vrf_lbl.html
With this tecnology ony one mpls lable used by one VRF:
But it requires inclusion of beta-future in the network core.
Who can tell how stable this feature  and whether it will be realised?
Today I decided to use two technologies that have already passed the test of time.
The first
BGP Support for IP Prefix Import from Global Table into a VRF Table
No MPLS LABEL for route from Global.
http://www.cisco.com/en/US/docs/ios/12_2s/feature/guide/fs_bgivt.html
Multi-VRF Selection Using Policy Based Routing (PBR)
And http://www.cisco.com/en/US/docs/ios/12_2sr/12_2srb/feature/guide/srb2mvrf.html
Sergiy A. Pyvovaroff