On Apr 25, 2012, at 9:17 PM, Will Hargrave wrote:
So around 2015 or perhaps before, careless operators of both IOS-XR and 7600
boxes may have a shock. :-)
Careless operators of 9K that don't change from the default scale maybe.
That's just a default limitation on the 9K.
Just change from
8 years ago when Cisco introduced the 3BXL, 1M routes was a lot of routes,
more than 5 times the size of the current Internet routing table, now,
it's not.
1M routes also doesn't mean 1M routes. IPv6, Multicast and IPv6 Multicast
take up more space, further reducing the available tcam resources.
On Apr 28, 2012, at 3:46 PM, Sigurbjörn Birkir Lárusson wrote:
The L3XL kills off video monitoring and requires an even more expensive
license and this is one of the main reasons the ASR9k doesn't sound that
exciting to me at this point. I'd like to see a lot more available tcam
space before
On 4/28/2012 4:10 PM, Robert Blayzor wrote:
Well the reality of the 720-3BXL in an IPv4/v6 world is that you get
about 500k IPv4 and half that in IPv6 (IIRC). The l3xl scale license
will get you 1M IPv4 routes and 128K IPv6. Of course you'll lose a lot
of your L2 scale. So if your considering
If you are willing to spend the money on the latest gen cards, the Typhoon
linecards support 4M IPv4/2M IPv6 in the FIB along with 2M MACs. There
are no different scale profiles for the cards to monkey around with
either.
Not really part of this conversation but I just ran across this
