[99437] in North American Network Operators' Group
Re: Route table growth and hardware limits...talk to the filter
daemon@ATHENA.MIT.EDU (John A. Kilpatrick)
Fri Sep 21 16:00:08 2007
Date: Fri, 21 Sep 2007 12:55:22 -0700 (PDT)
From: "John A. Kilpatrick" <john@hypergeek.net>
To: Pekka Savola <pekkas@netcore.fi>
cc: nanog@nanog.org
In-Reply-To: <Pine.LNX.4.64.0709212114350.7975@netcore.fi>
Errors-To: owner-nanog@merit.edu
On Fri, 21 Sep 2007, Pekka Savola wrote:
> But as should be obvious, you don't need to worry about this problem if
> you're willing to put money into router upgrades. However, I'm just
> suggesting there is an alternative to router upgrades if you're comfortable
> with the somewhat different tradeoffs that will bring with it.
Yes, I would agree this statement is true but some of the tradeoffs seem
pretty high.
My statement about routing platforms was more based on the fact that what
my Cisco rep said was true - the sup upgrade was gonna be cheaper than
7304s or "option J". I mean yeah, I could buy 7206s but it still wouldn't
save me that much.
What just chaps my hide is that there is no reason, in this application,
to need 40GB/slot performance. Their refusal to sell a cheaper card with
improved TCAM suggests that the SUP720/RSP720 has really high margins and
they're making a killing on this issue...
--
John A. Kilpatrick
john@hypergeek.net Email| http://www.hypergeek.net/
john-page@hypergeek.net Text pages| ICQ: 19147504
remember: no obstacles/only challenges
