Route table growth and hardware to the filter

micky coughes coughes at
Sat Sep 22 20:12:42 UTC 2007

On 9/22/07, James Jun <james at> 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

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.

More information about the NANOG mailing list