The future of NAPs & IXPs
Vadim Antonov
avg at kotovnik.com
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 :)
--vadim
Stephen Sprunk <ssprunk at cisco.com> 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a footnote recognizing that your numbers are out of date.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
> | | 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 cisco.com
More information about the NANOG
mailing list