[c-nsp] Dynamic TCAM allocation/optimization? (was Re: N7K tcam handling)

[Nick Hilliard]

On 11/03/2010 19:47, Tim Stevenson wrote:
> It's always a tradeoff. Presumably, if we spent CPU cycles churning
> through the RIB & deciding which entries could be "consolidated" (and
> then dealing with route adds/deletes, interface flaps, etc in such a
> scenario) then people would probably complain about how we chew up CPU
> trying to optimize the routing table rather than just using a bigger TCAM.
>
> Hope that helps,

Very much - thanks!

And it's a huge relief to see that %CFIB-SP-STBY-7-CFIB_EXCEPTION won't 
cause your 7600 to turn into a 2800 :-)

Nick