Route table growth and hardware limits...talk to the filter

Sun Sep 9 18:20:08 UTC 2007

On 09/09/2007, Andy Davidson <andy at nosignal.org> wrote:
>
>
>
> On 9 Sep 2007, at 08:02, randal k wrote:
> > This part here just boggles the mind. Not everybody out there that
> > needs full routes is pushing enough bandwidth to justify the cost
> > of a 720gbps backplane -- medium sized datacenters, regional ISPs,
> > etc all really like full routes but may never see even 30gbps of
> > traffic. Everybody I've talked to about this particular problem has
> > the same feelings -- that big C is hanging their 6509 user base out
> > to dry.
>
> There are Vendor C platforms that can push much more than 30Gbit, and
> take a full table comfortably, that cost a lot less than 6500 series
> kit.
>

That sounds very nice, what box is that ?
I can't remeber our C rep mentioning anything about that, but in C's defense
I'm not always paying attention.

-- 
Tony Sarendal - dualcyclone at gmail.com
IP/Unix
       -= The scorpion replied,
               "I couldn't help it, it's my nature" =-
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://mailman.nanog.org/pipermail/nanog/attachments/20070909/c1c50a33/attachment.html>