On 8/28/07 5:11 PM, "Lincoln Dale" <ltd@interlink.com.au> 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 john@hypergeek.net Email| http://www.hypergeek.net/ john-page@hypergeek.net Text pages| ICQ: 19147504 remember: no obstacles/only challenges