[92451] in North American Network Operators' Group
Re: Lucent GBE (4 x VC4) clues needed
daemon@ATHENA.MIT.EDU (Saku Ytti)
Thu Sep 21 09:38:40 2006
Date: Thu, 21 Sep 2006 16:36:42 +0300
From: Saku Ytti <saku+nanog@ytti.fi>
To: David Temkin <dave@rightmedia.com>
Cc: nanog@merit.edu
In-Reply-To: <F954425D51016944BA33ECE28561C3450341E199@CBA0E2K06.CBA0.centerbeam.com>
Errors-To: owner-nanog@merit.edu
On (2006-09-21 06:32 -0700), David Temkin wrote:
> > traffic also. We've tried to turn PXF off in NSE100. Packets
> Silly question (considering that you stated that IS-IS is borked also,
> which is not handled by PXF - but did you try disabling PXF?
Not silly question at all, it was just longer mail that many people
care to read (including me).
> There's a reason why Cisco discontinued every product that "features"
> it. It's broken.
It's not broken, it's just ciscos name for NPU, two PXF's doesn't mean
they have anything in common, apart being NPU. In essence, CRS-1
uses NPU's afaik, of course cisco doesn't call them PXF, due to
bad publicity. Cooler word for NPU style design is probably
cell processor, makes me feel warm already about my NSE100's.
Yes, you can design broken NPU, NSE-1 was good example of that :).
Thanks,
--
++ytti
