[c-nsp] When are ACLs inserted to TCAM

[Lincoln Dale]

Mark Tinka wrote:
> On Friday 18 April 2008, Lincoln Dale wrote:
>
>   
>> obviously the recommendation would ba NAMED ACL every
>> time.
>>     
>
> Except for where you can't use them, e.g., NTP access 
> groups. 
>   
right - however things like NTP access groups are clearly a 
control-plane (software-based) function anyway so there isn't any real 
downside or implication for programming TCAMs in that case.
> But yes, we prefer named access lists as well, if not for 
> anything else than their manageability, and use them 
> wherever they are supported.
>   

an "enhancement" we used for NX-OS is that there is no such thing as a 
standard ACL, extended ACL, numbered ACL, named ACL - everything is a 
named ACL including what you'd have for NTP.
for legacy reasons, such a change would be hard to retrofit to IOS, but 
i bet many folks wish that ACLs had simply been made 'named' initially 
way-back-when & then there wouldn't be all these variants & permutations 
that exist today.


cheers,

lincoln.