On 8/28/07 5:11 PM, "Lincoln Dale" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> agree that this isn't "ideal", however Cisco has always been very specific
> about the h/w FIB & adjacency table sizes on the hardware in question.
> i know that vendor bashing is a sport in this list, but....
The problem is that Cisco hasn't been forthcoming. To me it seems the data
was hidden in a corner of a spec sheet. Meanwhile sales teams are still
saying the PFC3B is acceptable for taking a full table. And the failure to
produce a Sup32-3BXL or similar is also frustrating - I don't need Sup720
backplane speeds on my edge router.
--
John A. Kilpatrick
[EMAIL PROTECTED] Email| http://www.hypergeek.net/
[EMAIL PROTECTED] Text pages| ICQ: 19147504
remember: no obstacles/only challenges
