[c-nsp] BGP Path Selection and next-hop reachability (IGP vs BGP)

[Gert Doering]

Hi,

On Sun, Dec 02, 2012 at 01:11:26PM +0000, Nick Hilliard wrote:
> On 02/12/2012 12:48, Gert Doering wrote:
> > either, but I refrained from ranting about it as people eventually might
> > get bored).
> 
> but what do you expect for 2003-era hardware?  The sup720/rsp720 isn't a
> prime target for Cisco at this stage and probably will become less and less
> so.  

Well, maybe someone at Cisco should listen and remove all those "roadmap"
statements for the 6500, then...  but that's sort of missing the point of
the rant - even taking into account that 6500/7600 IOS has been forked
away from plain IOS beyond hope, there is still no excuse for having
tremendously useful stuff in just one of those trains.

> At some stage, for better or worse, hardware refreshes are pretty
> necessary.  And the pfc3 has so many really serious hardware limitations
> (e.g. copp, ipv6, etc) that it's really not suitable for many customer
> facing applications these days.

And that explains why such useful features are available for the RSP720,
but not for the Sup2T?

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/20121202/bbac075a/attachment-0001.sig>