[c-nsp] C65K: Any significant correlation between import filter route-map complexity and BGP Router process utilization?

[Keegan Holley]

I understand turbo ACLs.  I was saying that the enhancements only apply to
packet manipulations not routing protocols.  I'm not sure if it is causing
the issues that started this thread, but the only way to optimize route
filters is to use prefix lists to match the routes.  For example all the
items in the link you sent pertain to packet filtering, QOS or natting.
 Correct me if I'm wrong but, I don't believe the improvements in ACL
processing applied to those used for route filters.

2010/9/4 Łukasz Bromirski <lukasz at bromirski.net>

> On 2010-09-05 01:52, Keegan Holley wrote:
> > I thought this was only optimized for TCAM operations related to packet
> > filtering/manipulation.
>
> No, Turbo ACLs were actually made for software-forwarding platforms -
> primarly 7200, 7500, later 12000 with old engines to speed up the
> processing time by use of more RAM memory for additional lookup tables.
>
> The way the mechanisms work for programming the TCAMs and other
> memories found on hardware-forwarding boxes are separate story. Some of
> the information about the way 6500/7600 manages the TCAM allocation is
> on the whitepaper on cisco.com[1] and in some of the Networkers
> presentations about architecture of those boxes.
>
> [1].
> http://www.cisco.com/en/US/products/hw/switches/ps708/products_white_paper09186a00800c9470.shtml
>
> --
> "Everything will be okay in the end.  |                 Łukasz Bromirski
>  If it's not okay, it's not the end." |      http://lukasz.bromirski.net
> _______________________________________________
> 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/
>
>
>