[41119] in North American Network Operators' Group
RE: What is the limit? (was RE: multi-homing fixes)
daemon@ATHENA.MIT.EDU (David Luyer)
Wed Aug 29 22:14:39 2001
From: David Luyer <david@luyer.net>
To: John Ferriby <john@interbroad.com>
Cc: nanog@merit.edu
In-Reply-To: <BNEJJGFPFOAPBMHHEDILEEDNCMAA.john@interbroad.com>
Content-Type: text/plain
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Date: 30 Aug 2001 12:14:02 +1000
Message-Id: <999137642.1400.27.camel@typhaon>
Mime-Version: 1.0
Errors-To: owner-nanog-outgoing@merit.edu
On 29 Aug 2001 15:19:08 -0400, John Ferriby wrote:
> Iljitsch van Beijnum wrote:
>
> > It's even worse than that: as far as I know, they never used the 68060 or
> > even 68040 CPUs. These puppies are a LOT faster than a 68030.
>
> They did provide a path using the 68040. "CSC/4" in cisco parlance.
CSC/4 was a 25MHz 68040/16M
CSC/3 was a 30MHz 68030/2M? or 4M? -- whatever it was, it
could only hold a very small BGP table :-)
CSC/2 was a 33MHz 68020
CSC/1 I have no idea
IGS was a 16MHz 68020
STS-10x was a 68010...:-) You had to be careful not to flood it's
memory with too large a RIP table...
The 2000, 3000, 4000 were also 68030 and the 7000 a 68040.
And many people still have numerous 25xx's still in service, those
are 68030's too... (and the 2511 still makes a really good console
server :-)).
The real revolution for the AGS+ was the flash cards. After requesting
IOS upgrades for half a dozen or more AGS+'s every month under
maintenance, Cisco sent us a stack of flash cards for free to stop us
requesting IOS updates.
That's the "definitely not compact" flash boards...
David.
