The future of NAPs & IXPs

Vadim Antonov avg at
Tue Apr 20 16:24:52 UTC 1999

Stephen --

i simply attached a date after the title.  BTW - backplane capacity
is not the same as user goodput capacity; and ethernet switch is
not the same as a router.   Cisco products historically demonstrated
that quite clearly.

And i'm working for a cisco competitor now (after the acquisition
of GeoTel) and have no incentive to promote newer cisco's
products :)


Stephen Sprunk <ssprunk at> wrote:

>Perhaps you could update this paper to reflect current products, since you
>specifically name vendors and their products' limitations without explicitly
>listing any model numbers or dates?

>For instance, the Cisco GSR (aka 12000) router has a non-blocking backplane
>capacity of 40Gbit/s, where you list a maximum backplane capacity of
>0.7Gbit/s.  Also, the Cisco 6500 switch has a non-blocking backplane
>capacity of 256Gbit/s and can currently hold up to 130 GigE ports.  This
>shows two orders of magnitude growth in capacity since your paper was
>written, and that's not counting the products I can't tell you about yet :)

>While I understand that the actual numbers are mostly irrelevant to the
>paper, it would be appreciated if you'd either update the numbers or put in
>a footnote recognizing that your numbers are out of date.


>     |          |         Stephen Sprunk, K5SSS, CCIE #3723
>    :|:        :|:        NSA, Network Consulting Engineer
>   :|||:      :|||:       14875 Landmark Blvd #400; Dallas, TX
>.:|||||||:..:|||||||:.    Pager: 800-365-4578 / 800-901-6078
>C I S C O S Y S T E M S   Email: ssprunk at

More information about the NANOG mailing list