[99463] in North American Network Operators' Group
Re: Route table growth and hardware limits...talk to the filter
daemon@ATHENA.MIT.EDU (micky coughes)
Sat Sep 22 16:13:38 2007
Date: Sat, 22 Sep 2007 16:12:42 -0400
From: "micky coughes" <coughes@gmail.com>
To: "James Jun" <james@towardex.com>
Cc: nanog@nanog.org
In-Reply-To: <001101c7fd4c$63c78370$1efc5dd8@HCMC.local>
Errors-To: owner-nanog@merit.edu
On 9/22/07, James Jun <james@towardex.com> wrote:
>
> >
> > 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...
>
> Actually, originally Cisco planned to release SUP32-XL or similar variant
> with higher FIB TCAM space. But they scrapped that plan near the end,
> screwing many people in the process (I'm sure some cisco account reps got
> earful about this from many people who bought sup32's in the past)-- I mean
> hey, forcing customers to buy SUP720 plus may be new line cards (depending
> on situation) is more revenue right? This whole 220k+ ipv4 routing issue is
> an excellent opportunity :)
>
> On the other hand, if you have the guts, try popping in a PFC3BXL card into
> SUP32. I wonder which IOS versions will actually recognize this and show ~1
> mil. entry capacity when doing 'sh mls cef max' ;-) (WARNING: this
> completely violates warranty and irreparable damage may occur)
>
>
> james
>
James,
So it is the vendor's fault that you didn't properly engineer your
network and size the right kit for the job? Learn a little
engineering 101 to avoid these situations.
