Even on processor-based routing, CEF should have a better stability to
changing traffic patterns than demand-based fast-caching. Also, CEF pruning
instead of clearing the fast-cache should show a better response to route
instability, taking lesse CPU cycles to recover steady state.
A possible gain is using RPF instead of access-lists when no other filtering
besides spoofing is required.
Rubens Kuhl Jr.
-----Original Message-----
From: Dan Hollis [mailto:goemon@anime.net]
Sent: Monday, April 23, 2001 5:24 PM
To: Pegg Damon
Cc: 'Stefan Simko'; cisco-nsp@puck.nether.net; jared@puck.nether.net
Subject: RE: [nsp] CEF
On Mon, 23 Apr 2001, Pegg Damon wrote:
> In general, CEF does wonders for your cpu util but at heavy memory cost.
I haven't noticed any improvement on 36xx'en, regardless of traffic load
or cpu load. I guess CEF only helps on other architectures, 7xxx and
above?
-Dan
This archive was generated by hypermail 2b29 : Sun Aug 04 2002 - 04:12:35 EDT