Nick Hilliard wrote on 21/2/2013 01:30: > On 20/02/2013 22:28, Tassos Chatzithomaoglou wrote: >> If i knew that a single command can decrease throughput from 40G to 8G in a >> supposedly top >> class cpu with everything hw-accelerated (aka qfp), i would have posted the >> nothing >> special interface config... and would have looked at other >> platforms/solutions...from the >> beginning. > to be fair, nbar is kinda different. 40 gbit/sec of nbar classification > with no performance hit would be a pretty impressive feat on any platform. Miercom test says so for the ESP20...regardless of many others opinion (inc mine) about their c-tailored tests. Internal cisco tests talk about nbar performance of 10 x our current pps. I guess we'll know for sure as we get an official answer from tac. >> Anyway, previous releases didn't have this issue (at least with this amount >> of traffic), >> so let's hope it doesn't become a new feature. I don't want to even think >> about future >> nbar in ASR9k.:-\ > does the asr9k even do nbar? I don't think it does even with the ISM module. > > Nick > > > Not that i know of. That's why i'm talking about "future" nbar
Many times ASR9k is being pushed as ASR1k's big brother, so i wouldn't be surprised if it was to appear sometime in the future. -- Tassos _______________________________________________ cisco-nsp mailing list [email protected] https://puck.nether.net/mailman/listinfo/cisco-nsp archive at http://puck.nether.net/pipermail/cisco-nsp/
