Ok. Thanks. This is what I wanted to know. I was aware of the difference in scaling numbers and the ability to allocate space for mpls labels, IPv4 routes...What I was confused about was the price difference (List Price) - which is up to $US 60K (for ES+40) cards between the two versions (non-XL and XL). It's very odd that such a big discrepancy in price is coming from the size of the TCAM.Thanks, Marlon
On Mon, Jan 26, 2009 at 1:21 PM, Brandon Bennett <[email protected]> wrote: > > > On Mon, Jan 26, 2009 at 12:49 PM, Marlon Duksa <[email protected]> wrote: > >> Hi - Can someone tell me what is the exact difference between line cards, >> for example ES20 for 7600, with DFC3C and the XL version of the same? >> Is it only a DDRAM or is it something else? I know that the >> scaling numbers are higher on the XL version of the cards but not sure if >> there is anything else on those cards except the memory that makes it >> larger? Or is it TCAM? Whatever it is, it looks to me that it is only the >> external memory in question and nothing inherent to the chips (EARL for >> example).. > > > The difference si the same as a Sup720 (or RSP) with a PFC3C or PFC3CXL. > It's all about the size of the routing table. The DFC3C can only hold aprox > 256K routes (this will vary based on your configuration/defaults etc). The > DFC3CXL can hold approx 1M routes (again check the TCAM configuration guide > on how to allocate TCAM amongst protocols). > > All DFCs/PFCs will run at the lowest common demonitor. So If you have a > RSP720-PFC3CXL and a ES20 with a DFC3C in it the entire system will be > limited to the TCAM size of the DFC3C. > > Also if you are buying new, please look into the ES20+ which has many > improvements over the ES20. > > -Brandon Bennett > > _______________________________________________ cisco-nsp mailing list [email protected] https://puck.nether.net/mailman/listinfo/cisco-nsp archive at http://puck.nether.net/pipermail/cisco-nsp/
