[c-nsp] cisco-nsp Digest, Vol 44, Issue 14

[Richard A Steenbergen]

On Fri, Jul 07, 2006 at 12:42:37AM +0200, Asbjorn Hojmark - Lists wrote:
> > There's also the lingering question I recently asked.  If you 
> > think you ever might want full BGP routes (I know you said you
> > don't now), the Sup32 may be an expensive, short lived piece of
> > hardware.  Nobody seems to know if it'll ever support >256k
> > routes.
> 
> Well, with the current PFC3B it'll only support 239k. Cisco is
> now saying "no plans" when asked about the PFC3BXL for Sup32.
> 
> I guess one can still hope for PFC3C(XL?).

Do you have any idea how easy it is to implement CAM aggregation (where 
you don't install the fib entry for a route if there is a less specific 
aggregate covering the route and pointing to the same next-hop)? Even on a 
core box with lots of nexthops you can effectively double your fib 
capacity that way with minimal effort, and for "most" people who have a 
default route out you can get fib usage down to almost nothing. :)

This is stuff that other vendors with more limited cam space have been 
managing to pull off for years, it's not rocket science. Cisco just wants 
you to pony up more cash and buy a much more expensive XL.

-- 
Richard A Steenbergen <ras at e-gerbil.net>       http://www.e-gerbil.net/ras
GPG Key ID: 0xF8B12CBC (7535 7F59 8204 ED1F CC1C 53AF 4C41 5ECA F8B1 2CBC)