nanog mailing list archives
RE: Route table growth and hardware limits...talk to the filter
From: "Lincoln Dale" <ltd () interlink com au>
Date: Fri, 21 Sep 2007 23:26:04 +1000
Jon Lewis wrote:Do you know in what version this behavior was changed? At the very least, people are going to want to upgrade IOS, as it'll likely mean the difference between slightly increased MSFC CPU and a switch that can't cope.I looked at the IOS version I ran the test on it was quite old (12.1). I am happy to rerun the test with other versions of IOS. Any suggestions?
i'd suggest the most recent 12.2(18)SXF (its 12.2(18)SXF11) or 12.2(33)SXH. i think you'll find you get different results than your original test. cheers, lincoln. (ltd () cisco com)
Current thread:
- RE: Route table growth and hardware limits...talk to the filter, (continued)
- RE: Route table growth and hardware limits...talk to the filter Jon Lewis (Sep 23)
- pointing default (was Re: Route table growth and hardware limits...talk to the filter) Randy Bush (Sep 23)
- Re: Route table growth and hardware limits...talk to the filter John A. Kilpatrick (Sep 21)
- RE: Route table growth and hardware limits...talk to the filter James Jun (Sep 22)
- Re: Route table growth and hardware limits...talk to the filter micky coughes (Sep 22)
- RE: Route table growth and hardware limits...talk to the filter James Jun (Sep 22)
- RE: Route table growth and hardware limits...talk to the filter John A. Kilpatrick (Sep 25)
- RE: Route table growth and hardware limits...talk to the filter Lincoln Dale (Sep 21)
- RE: Route table growth and hardware limits...talk to the filter Jon Lewis (Sep 21)
- Re: Route table growth and hardware limits...talk to the filter Matt Liotta (Sep 21)
- RE: Route table growth and hardware limits...talk to the filter Lincoln Dale (Sep 21)