Hosting Provided By

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

From: John A. Kilpatrick <john(at)hypergeek.net>
Date: Wed Aug 29 2007 - 11:00:39 EDT

On 8/28/07 5:11 PM, "Lincoln Dale" <ltd@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@hypergeek.net      Text pages|          ICQ: 19147504
                  remember:  no obstacles/only challenges

Received on Wed Aug 29 11:24:32 2007

This message: [ Message body ]
Next message: Rich Graves: "Re: Seeking UUNET/Level3 help re packet loss between Comcast & Onvoy customers"
Previous message: Geoffrey Pan: "Comcast routing issues in Houston?"
In reply to: Lincoln Dale: "RE: "2M today, 10M with no change in technology"? An informal survey."
Next in thread: William Herrin: "Re: "2M today, 10M with no change in technology"? An informal survey."

Contemporary messages sorted: [ By Date ] [ By Thread ] [ By Subject ] [ By Author ] [ By messages with attachments ]

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.8 : Mon Oct 29 2007 - 14:04:50 EDT