[99204] in North American Network Operators' Group
Re: Route table growth and hardware limits...talk to the filter
daemon@ATHENA.MIT.EDU (tony sarendal)
Sun Sep 9 14:23:45 2007
Date: Sun, 9 Sep 2007 19:20:08 +0100
From: "tony sarendal" <dualcyclone@gmail.com>
To: "Andy Davidson" <andy@nosignal.org>
Cc: nanog@nanog.org
In-Reply-To: <4446A894-133E-4B00-8FC0-EBDD6E50C91F@nosignal.org>
Errors-To: owner-nanog@merit.edu
------=_Part_7441_25941397.1189362008196
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Content-Disposition: inline
On 09/09/2007, Andy Davidson <andy@nosignal.org> wrote:
>
>
>
> On 9 Sep 2007, at 08:02, randal k wrote:
> > 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.
>
> There are Vendor C platforms that can push much more than 30Gbit, and
> take a full table comfortably, that cost a lot less than 6500 series
> kit.
>
That sounds very nice, what box is that ?
I can't remeber our C rep mentioning anything about that, but in C's defense
I'm not always paying attention.
--
Tony Sarendal - dualcyclone@gmail.com
IP/Unix
-= The scorpion replied,
"I couldn't help it, it's my nature" =-
------=_Part_7441_25941397.1189362008196
Content-Type: text/html; charset=ISO-8859-1
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Content-Disposition: inline
<br><br><div><span class="gmail_quote">On 09/09/2007, <b class="gmail_sendername">Andy Davidson</b> <<a href="mailto:andy@nosignal.org">andy@nosignal.org</a>> wrote:</span><blockquote class="gmail_quote" style="border-left: 1px solid rgb(204, 204, 204); margin: 0pt 0pt 0pt 0.8ex; padding-left: 1ex;">
<br><br>On 9 Sep 2007, at 08:02, randal k wrote:<br>> This part here just boggles the mind. Not everybody out there that<br>> needs full routes is pushing enough bandwidth to justify the cost<br>> of a 720gbps backplane -- medium sized datacenters, regional ISPs,
<br>> etc all really like full routes but may never see even 30gbps of<br>> traffic. Everybody I've talked to about this particular problem has<br>> the same feelings -- that big C is hanging their 6509 user base out
<br>> to dry.<br><br>There are Vendor C platforms that can push much more than 30Gbit, and<br>take a full table comfortably, that cost a lot less than 6500 series<br>kit.<br></blockquote></div><br>That sounds very nice, what box is that ?
<br clear="all">I can't remeber our C rep mentioning anything about that, but in C's defense<br>I'm not always paying attention.<br><br>-- <br>Tony Sarendal - <a href="mailto:dualcyclone@gmail.com">dualcyclone@gmail.com
</a><br>IP/Unix<br> -= The scorpion replied,<br> "I couldn't help it, it's my nature" =-
------=_Part_7441_25941397.1189362008196--
