-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE----- Hash: SHA256
On 5/Oct/15 13:14, Gert Doering wrote: > > > I wouldn't actually consider the PPC based REs particularily well-suited > for a *peering* router (read: "lots of BGP activity" = "a fast CPU and/or > a good multi-process BGP implementation is what you want") - this RE is > almost as slow as a sup720, and I wouldn't use one of those either. Another reason I wouldn't spend money on an MX80. Even though the MX104 is a PPC-based platform, I'm okay to spend money on that because the RE is modular. Mark. -----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE----- iQIcBAEBCAAGBQJWEm8QAAoJEGcZuYTeKm+G6HoP/RuAY+Vgl2HVPNz5Y7xF8slC DzzfQUwMYSXwWSjJWXsR/8Osk5oYDAuPFgHEGxcAv6CmmJ0IzRbdZ6g9KdSbE8g5 Q5OHC+lbcA4s/BAO4qoNvkiU8j933xAxKJwkC0OKqMtkiA4x9dmqbTzCkBaqlx0j VKm3NsCFuRCAYVzl4YO2XXxML1S8HPX9ie4S5qS3I+gV/hd3Kjv9+9dAhcWFbkiN 5eW4batGJmp3i0dPqYuNSfJTeTq5e8iBqpVswiHFsOyCtL3cWu6Clcd9OjV0mhhW yqX0/z1CJLQENP7gB18d/7ilQiYUDL8ZoIdRZF7IJVTW9DQUdPQxCcbxxtfGlVk0 WpsPCaL+E6+6kxtC1IS15HeIqo7NNg3wW1QRttXvRLLsRp3iHnLUujOXO7cE+kr9 rARdno2fTR84o46izmesTbAVFMsO4iOx06Kf1faeEMRDtFOCfc1Veze29XruhZIC Ypm25+maGlkeBNDbO9E4Z7gjQ6nb1SEw9H/1MsdDoUzkgGV5tNPZBxNc+w6QN8wm SLpqWAWB+Ec0UJQqJMd6cpKTkm7kAoZBdoq4/5cnw7rMYcQUl6FK+bQtrWRmoIVh gSW+YfhZjsSoSCFPPrd4xyiLF+3OFjp4/m0VT4LH1FtFDmAJpS+qyJyjSbz2iaBY zDLiYDl/NmVVQ+tEhFH1 =PJww -----END 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/
