Hi, On Wed, Jan 09, 2008 at 11:53:23AM +0100, [REDACTED] wrote: > > 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 ?
Such algorithms exist (usually you can compress FIB much better than
just plain aggregation of adjacent prefixes, given that most routers
have only a handful of diverse next-hops), but if Cisco would implement
that, customers have no need to buy XL hardware.
So business dictates "spend $$$ so customers will NOT spend $$$" = "bad idea".
(Technically, it's non-trivial, so it would take a while to shake down
bugs, and customers wouldn't like that either, of course).
gert
--
USENET is *not* the non-clickable part of WWW!
//www.muc.de/~gert/
Gert Doering - Munich, Germany [EMAIL PROTECTED]
fax: +49-89-35655025 [EMAIL PROTECTED]
pgp5PisBGypXe.pgp
Description: PGP signature
_______________________________________________ cisco-nsp mailing list [email protected] https://puck.nether.net/mailman/listinfo/cisco-nsp archive at http://puck.nether.net/pipermail/cisco-nsp/
