[99195] in North American Network Operators' Group
Re: Route table growth and hardware limits...talk to the filter
daemon@ATHENA.MIT.EDU (randal k)
Sun Sep 9 03:10:39 2007
Date: Sun, 9 Sep 2007 01:02:57 -0600
From: "randal k" <nanog@data102.com>
To: "Jon Lewis" <jlewis@lewis.org>
Cc: nanog@nanog.org
In-Reply-To: <Pine.LNX.4.61.0709082149350.30395@soloth.lewis.org>
Errors-To: owner-nanog@merit.edu
------=_Part_3318_8964276.1189321377695
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Content-Disposition: inline
> I just can't understand why they
> won't/haven't done a Sup32-3bxl for those using this platform but not
> moving enough Gbps to need the traffic capabilities of the Sup720-3bxl.
This part here just boggles the mind. Not everybody out there that needs
full routes is pushing enough bandwidth to justify the cost of a 720gbps
backplane -- medium sized datacenters, regional ISPs, etc all really like
full routes but may never see even 30gbps of traffic. Everybody I've talked
to about this particular problem has the same feelings -- that big C is
hanging their 6509 user base out to dry.
------=_Part_3318_8964276.1189321377695
Content-Type: text/html; charset=ISO-8859-1
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Content-Disposition: inline
> I just can't understand why they<br>> won't/haven't done a Sup32-3bxl for those using this platform but not<br>> moving enough Gbps to need the traffic capabilities of the Sup720-3bxl.<br><br>This part here just boggles the mind. Not everybody out there that
needs full routes is pushing enough bandwidth to justify the cost of a
720gbps backplane -- medium sized datacenters, regional ISPs, etc all
really like full routes but may never see even 30gbps of traffic.
Everybody I've talked to about this particular problem has the same
feelings -- that big C is hanging their 6509 user base out to dry.<br>
------=_Part_3318_8964276.1189321377695--
