> The equipment available today is designed foolishly --
> route update processing and actual packet processing should NEVER be done by
> the same CPU -- but it is -- and as such you're dead when this happens.
> Lest anyone believe this, it's bullshit.
> Karl just buys low end gear and then complains because it's not high
> end gear.
>I suppose that a 7000 with a SSP is considered "low end" gear then?
>It was *Vadim* who was complaining about CPU usage on your boxes, not me.
>Karl Denninger (karl@MCS.Net)
Would you please refrain from attributing to me the things i did not say?
Particularly i never said anything about "actual packet processing
by the same CPU" here.
I "complained" (heh i do not _complain_, i simply state the facts) about
CPU usage by BGP updates.
That was my point Vadim.
You were saying that Cisco's "state of the art" equipment was inadequate to
handle the load you were presenting to it, in that the slightest abnormality
in the external world made it essentially useless for a period of time.
My argument is that one of three things must then be true:
1) You are incorrectly using the equipment you purchased.
2) The equipment is not meeting its specifications which you relied on
when you purchased it.
3) The equipment is incapable of handling the load presented by a
I have my own beliefs about which is the case, and I'm sure you do too. Or
perhaps you were just making an excuse rather than presenting a case?