On 15/01/15 12:26, [email protected] wrote:
Interesting your distinction because Cisco says that the 4451:
"The product???s innovative hardware design splits the control and data planes
between two multi-core CPUs???
Indeed, that's where my definition would not trivially apply either way :-)
(And given how fast multipurpose CPUs have become, we see this in other
areas as well - like "SSL offloading PCI boards" that you could add to
a web server for decent HTTPS performance... most of that has just plain
disappeared with modern CPUs...)
For me the relevant question is often: Can the box handle line rate,
or close to it, with minimum sized packets (and any access lists,
services, QoS etc that you need)? If it can, great - otherwise you're
opening yourself to a DoS attack at some point.
I tend to agree. I like predictable performance that degrades sensibly,
not suddenly crossing a threshold and failing to work at all. Whether
it's FPGA, TCAM or CPU and fast RAM is in theory irrelevant.
In practice, vendors tend to be rosy about their performance, and the
underlying architecture can indicate the likely performance window ;o)
_______________________________________________
cisco-nsp mailing list [email protected]
https://puck.nether.net/mailman/listinfo/cisco-nsp
archive at http://puck.nether.net/pipermail/cisco-nsp/
