[c-nsp] Making SUP720 cope better under BGP load

[Chip Gwyn]

The other issue at hand is going to be route table size.  If I recall correctly TCAM on the 2T is the same as the 720.  

Sent from my mobile device, please excuse any typos.

On Dec 9, 2012, at 5:45 AM, Tóth András <diosbejgli at gmail.com> wrote:

> Adrian,
> 
> Inband channel (link to CPU) is a 1GE full-duplex link in both Sup720 and
> Sup2T.
> 
> Best regards,
> Andras
> 
> 
> On Sun, Dec 9, 2012 at 10:25 AM, Adrian Minta <adrian.minta at gmail.com>wrote:
> 
>> On 12/09/12 07:10, Andrew Jones wrote:
>> 
>>> Sup720 cpu is around 600mhz if i remember correctly, whilst sup2t is 1.5
>>> ghz dual core, so one would sup2t would handle this much better. Also,
>>> sup2t has much better CoPP capability with built in default config
>>> templates, ready for you to tune if needed.
>>> 
>>> 
>>> The CPU network interface is still 10mbps half duplex ?
>> 
>> --
>> Best regards,
>> Adrian Minta
>> 
>> 
>> 
>> ______________________________**_________________
>> cisco-nsp mailing list  cisco-nsp at puck.nether.net
>> https://puck.nether.net/**mailman/listinfo/cisco-nsp<https://puck.nether.net/mailman/listinfo/cisco-nsp>
>> archive at http://puck.nether.net/**pipermail/cisco-nsp/<http://puck.nether.net/pipermail/cisco-nsp/>
>> 
> _______________________________________________
> 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/