nanog mailing list archives

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


From: "tony sarendal" <dualcyclone () gmail com>
Date: Sun, 9 Sep 2007 19:20:08 +0100

On 09/09/2007, Andy Davidson <andy () 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 () gmail com
IP/Unix
       -= The scorpion replied,
               "I couldn't help it, it's my nature" =-

Current thread: