On Fri, Jul 18, 2008 at 11:55:44AM -0400, Paul Stewart wrote:
> Still wondering if anyone knows how the Cisco lifetime warranty really
> works...?
You call up TAC, tell them you have a problem with your catalyst.
Since the huge gray-market problem with cisco gear, they'll probably
want proof tha
Paul Francis wrote:
So, if I get you right, you are saying that edge routers have fewer CPU
requirements, and so ISPs can get away with software routers and don't care
about FIB.
"ISP's that can get away with software routers" Also multihomed edge
networks, the costs associated with multihomi
So, if I get you right, you are saying that edge routers have fewer CPU
requirements, and so ISPs can get away with software routers and don't care
about FIB. At the same time, folks in the middle are saying that in any
event they need to buy high-end routers, and so can afford to buy enough
hardw
Adrian Chadd wrote:
On Sun, Jul 20, 2008, Joel Jaeggli wrote:
Not saying that they couldn't benefit from it, however on one hand we
have a device with a 36Mbit cam on the other, one with 2GB of ram, which
one fills up first?
Well, the actual data point you should look at is "160k odd FIB fro
On Sun, Jul 20, 2008, Joel Jaeggli wrote:
> Not saying that they couldn't benefit from it, however on one hand we
> have a device with a 36Mbit cam on the other, one with 2GB of ram, which
> one fills up first?
Well, the actual data point you should look at is "160k odd FIB from a couple
years
Adrian Chadd wrote:
On Sun, Jul 20, 2008, Joel Jaeggli wrote:
Software switched routers have little pressure on fib limitions. For a
certain class of application the software switched edge router is in a
much better position to accommodate fib growth than a device with a
fixed sized cam.
I
On Sun, Jul 20, 2008, Joel Jaeggli wrote:
> Software switched routers have little pressure on fib limitions. For a
> certain class of application the software switched edge router is in a
> much better position to accommodate fib growth than a device with a
> fixed sized cam.
I dunno about tha
Paul Francis wrote:
Gang,
I have submitted an internet-draft to the IDR group on virtual aggregation
(VA) (http://www.ietf.org/internet-drafts/draft-francis-idr-intra-va-00.txt).
This draft suggests a few changes to routers that allow operators to control
the size of their FIBs, shrinking them b
Certainly in principle it can, though that is not in the current proposal.
The basic idea is to suppress installing routes into the FIB when there is a
"virtual aggregate" that you can tunnel to instead.
I remember we discussed this in San Jose NANOG, but I forget the details.
Can you remind me?
Paul,
Can this proposal be applied to IS-IS (or other IGP) as well as BGP?
- Alain.
On 7/20/08 8:46 AM, "Paul Francis" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> Gang,
>
> I have submitted an internet-draft to the IDR group on virtual aggregation
> (VA) (http://www.ietf.org/internet-drafts/draft-francis
Gang,
I have submitted an internet-draft to the IDR group on virtual aggregation
(VA) (http://www.ietf.org/internet-drafts/draft-francis-idr-intra-va-00.txt).
This draft suggests a few changes to routers that allow operators to control
the size of their FIBs, shrinking them by 5x or 10x quite easi
11 matches
Mail list logo
