[c-nsp] 6500/BGP/full route tables [even more] confusing...

[Gert Doering]

Hi,

On Sat, Mar 26, 2011 at 03:05:13PM -0400, Jeff Kell wrote:
> > If you're not doing that much traffic, is removing the DFC from the
> > WS-X6516-GBIC an option?
> 
> I don't know, that's why I'm asking, but if that's a viable option, will
> certainly give it a try.

Well, it will fall back to central lookup on the Sup720, which is (if I
remember right) only a problem if the shared bus is full or your traffic
levels are really high (more than 15Mpps) - but if you only have 67xx and 
65xx cards in the system, the shared bus is only used for lookups and has 
plenty of capacity for that.

(Saku Ytti will correct me if I'm wrong...)

What I'm not sure right now is whether the 6516 needs a CFC as replacement
for the DFC, or whether it's sufficient to remove the DFC.  I think I've 
only ever seen "CFC" mentioned when 67xx cards are involved, but you might
want to check cisco.com to be sure :-)

gert
-- 
USENET is *not* the non-clickable part of WWW!
                                                           //www.muc.de/~gert/
Gert Doering - Munich, Germany                             gert at greenie.muc.de
fax: +49-89-35655025                        gert at net.informatik.tu-muenchen.de
-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: not available
Type: application/pgp-signature
Size: 305 bytes
Desc: not available
URL: <https://puck.nether.net/pipermail/cisco-nsp/attachments/20110326/e6a2f8eb/attachment.pgp>