[99019] in North American Network Operators' Group
Re: "2M today, 10M with no change in technology"? An informal
daemon@ATHENA.MIT.EDU (John A. Kilpatrick)
Wed Aug 29 11:04:34 2007
Date: Wed, 29 Aug 2007 08:00:39 -0700
From: "John A. Kilpatrick" <john@hypergeek.net>
To: Lincoln Dale <ltd@interlink.com.au>
CC: <nanog@merit.edu>
In-Reply-To: <069c01c7e9d1$3bebbc10$046f09cb@ltdbeast>
Errors-To: owner-nanog@merit.edu
On 8/28/07 5:11 PM, "Lincoln Dale" <ltd@interlink.com.au> wrote:
> agree that this isn't "ideal", however Cisco has always been very specific
> about the h/w FIB & adjacency table sizes on the hardware in question.
> i know that vendor bashing is a sport in this list, but....
The problem is that Cisco hasn't been forthcoming. To me it seems the data
was hidden in a corner of a spec sheet. Meanwhile sales teams are still
saying the PFC3B is acceptable for taking a full table. And the failure to
produce a Sup32-3BXL or similar is also frustrating - I don't need Sup720
backplane speeds on my edge router.
--
John A. Kilpatrick
john@hypergeek.net Email| http://www.hypergeek.net/
john-page@hypergeek.net Text pages| ICQ: 19147504
remember: no obstacles/only challenges
