[c-nsp] TCAM refresher

[Florian Weimer]

* Tony Li:

>> And your ARP table entries.  Of course, Cisco could fix that by
>> aggregating entries before they end up in the TCAM: If both
>> 192.0.2.8/30 and 192.0.2.12/30 have the same adjacency, you can do
>> with a route for 192.0.2.8/29 instead.  But there are probably reasons
>> for not doing it this way in the first place, so it's unlikely that
>> such a change will arrive in time.

> Such a change is computationally intensive and would frequently cause
> problems with processor overload.

Just out of curiosity, have actually you benchmarked this?

(But I admit, the necessary code changes before you could do this look
pretty significant.)