[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]

Alternatives to storm-control on Cat 6509.

Subject: Alternatives to storm-control on Cat 6509.
From: rdobbins at arbor.net (Roland Dobbins)
Date: Tue, 25 Aug 2009 01:16:22 +0700
In-reply-to: <[email protected]>
References: <B5F945E48C137C49A98BC86DD35939C012DFA2D012@nbg01-exch-01.entlstaff.domain.lumison.net> <[email protected]>

On Aug 25, 2009, at 1:03 AM, Holmes,David A wrote:

> In my opinion the Sup32 platform has some limitations when the  
> technology is considered for high data rate, deterministic carrier  
> customer-facing scenarios

The hardware-based FPM is interesting.

-----------------------------------------------------------------------
Roland Dobbins <rdobbins at arbor.net> // <http://www.arbornetworks.com>

Sorry, sometimes I mistake your existential crises for technical
insights.

			-- xkcd #625

References:
- Alternatives to storm-control on Cat 6509.
  - From: Peter.George at lumison.net (Peter George)
- Alternatives to storm-control on Cat 6509.
  - From: dholmes at mwdh2o.com (Holmes,David A)

Prev by Date: Alternatives to storm-control on Cat 6509.
Next by Date: Best Effort QoS Drop Profile Input
Previous by thread: Alternatives to storm-control on Cat 6509.
Next by thread: Alternatives to storm-control on Cat 6509.
Index(es):
- Date
- Thread