Re: The future of NAPs & IXPs

[Vadim Antonov <avg () kotovnik com>]

Stephen --

i simply attached a date after the title.  BTW - backplane capacity
is not the same as user goodput capacity; and ethernet switch is
not the same as a router.   Cisco products historically demonstrated
that quite clearly.

And i'm working for a cisco competitor now (after the acquisition
of GeoTel) and have no incentive to promote newer cisco's
products :)

--vadim

Stephen Sprunk <ssprunk () cisco com> wrote:

> Perhaps you could update this paper to reflect current products, since you
> specifically name vendors and their products' limitations without explicitly
> listing any model numbers or dates?

> For instance, the Cisco GSR (aka 12000) router has a non-blocking backplane
> capacity of 40Gbit/s, where you list a maximum backplane capacity of
> 0.7Gbit/s.  Also, the Cisco 6500 switch has a non-blocking backplane
> capacity of 256Gbit/s and can currently hold up to 130 GigE ports.  This
> shows two orders of magnitude growth in capacity since your paper was
> written, and that's not counting the products I can't tell you about yet :)

> While I understand that the actual numbers are mostly irrelevant to the
> paper, it would be appreciated if you'd either update the numbers or put in
> a footnote recognizing that your numbers are out of date.

> Stephen

>     |          |         Stephen Sprunk, K5SSS, CCIE #3723
>    :|:        :|:        NSA, Network Consulting Engineer
>   :|||:      :|||:       14875 Landmark Blvd #400; Dallas, TX
> .:|||||||:..:|||||||:.    Pager: 800-365-4578 / 800-901-6078
> C I S C O S Y S T E M S   Email: ssprunk () cisco com