Hi, On Tue, Aug 14, 2012 at 07:50:08PM -0400, Brandon Applegate wrote: > I know this has been mentioned over the years here and there, but I don't > know that I fully understand the exact behavior. I've always read 'urpf > halves your tcam...'. So this only applies to the interface on which it's > configured, correct ? So for example, in a single switch with the full > routing table (using ipv4 for examples, and using simple even numbers > not counting any built-in entries):
This only applies to Sup2.
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]
pgpXDS78bfsD7.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/
