North American Network Operators Group
Date Prev | Date Next |
Date Index |
Thread Index |
Author Index |
Historical
Re: Route table growth and hardware limits...talk to the filter
- From: tony sarendal
- Date: Sun Sep 09 14:28:36 2007
- Dkim-signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=gmail.com; s=beta; h=domainkey-signature:received:received:message-id:date:from:to:subject:cc:in-reply-to:mime-version:content-type:references; bh=m3BprQpfhPxN6tMO7dvF69zenl46hEMWQDEdi0bONis=; b=lLHobxAdGyW87RCSSpzYU/X9DLSCHt8a/DORgvErpkz25w2/wj0Rh72ysdEl9QqBB+Pa3JRCQW7f7pgwi7YojFeEbq1lYS+NAgl5E/gB/DdYXb6cMONxSWIjb6YiZN75ZkogvkbV0ykeO22jwRmej4+nPJAy2Y2kYsOv9qEKOl4=
- Domainkey-signature: a=rsa-sha1; c=nofws; d=gmail.com; s=beta; h=received:message-id:date:from:to:subject:cc:in-reply-to:mime-version:content-type:references; b=MB2vOz0aohjw/90WymOs/xms1u3U5l8uNqFyiFq9SUK4F2tkbyR+nXiJfJcZDRuWWlQptb6Q86xbli0j+QOS9R3xdqiER15+II8CgKw3DbIprBljG9D2vN4tcuWbbS3JB78gCWZlevkrS/7TmhdUvvdL8uFCYT41i2Lg1P41y7o=
On 09/09/2007, Andy Davidson <[email protected]> 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 - [email protected]
IP/Unix
-= The scorpion replied,
"I couldn't help it, it's my nature" =-
|