[c-nsp] TCAM refresher

[Chris Griffin]

How about unnecessary specifics in the presence of a valid covering 
route?  I imagine the concern would be the potential CPU increase if 
that covering route went away and you had to install a ton of specifics 
into the FIB, but it might be a good optional feature.

Chris

Tony Li wrote:
> On Mar 14, 2007, at 1:25 PM, Florian Weimer wrote:
> 
>> * Brian Turnbow:
>>
>>> The fib is used to populate the tcam.  So yes all 600K routes will
>>> not go in , but besides bgp all your local routes will.
>> 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.
> 
> Tony
> _______________________________________________
> cisco-nsp mailing list  cisco-nsp at puck.nether.net
> https://puck.nether.net/mailman/listinfo/cisco-nsp
> archive at http://puck.nether.net/pipermail/cisco-nsp/

-- 
Chris Griffin                           cgriffin at ufl.edu
Sr. Network Engineer - CCNP             Phone: (352) 273-1051
CNS - Network Services                  Fax:   (352) 392-9440
University of Florida/FLR               Gainesville, FL 32611