[REDACTED] wrote: > On Wed, 2008-01-09 at 11:28 +0100, Gert Doering wrote: > Hi, > >> On Wed, Jan 09, 2008 at 09:59:21AM +0100, Mohacsi Janos wrote: >>> We are using Sup32 with 12.2(18)SXF11 for more than 2.5 months without a >>> problem (Earlier we used 12.2(18)SXF10) - of course without full routing >>> table.... >> Have you been hit by "more prefixes in the RIB than would fit into TCAM"? > > Hum, why Cisco don't create a software feature for be able to store > aggragated routes in the TCAM ?
This hypothetical feature (much like the entire topic under discussion, sigh) has been discussed several times on the list. See the archives: http://puck.nether.net/pipermail/cisco-nsp/2007-March/039196.html ...is the 3rd hit for "cisco-nsp tcam aggregation" on google, for example. _______________________________________________ cisco-nsp mailing list [email protected] https://puck.nether.net/mailman/listinfo/cisco-nsp archive at http://puck.nether.net/pipermail/cisco-nsp/
