"2M today, 10M with no change in technology"? An informal survey.

John A. Kilpatrick john at hypergeek.net
Wed Aug 29 15:00:39 UTC 2007

On 8/28/07 5:11 PM, "Lincoln Dale" <ltd at interlink.com.au> wrote:

> agree that this isn't "ideal", however Cisco has always been very specific
> about the h/w FIB & adjacency table sizes on the hardware in question.
> i know that vendor bashing is a sport in this list, but....

The problem is that Cisco hasn't been forthcoming.  To me it seems the data
was hidden in a corner of a spec sheet.  Meanwhile sales teams are still
saying the PFC3B is acceptable for taking a full table.  And the failure to
produce a Sup32-3BXL or similar is also frustrating - I don't need Sup720
backplane speeds on my edge router.

                                John A. Kilpatrick
john at hypergeek.net                Email|     http://www.hypergeek.net/
john-page at hypergeek.net      Text pages|          ICQ: 19147504
                  remember:  no obstacles/only challenges

More information about the NANOG mailing list