From: Nikolay Aleksandrov <nikolay@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> Date: Tue, 25 Aug 2015 22:28:16 -0700 > Certainly, that should be done and I will look into it, but the > essence of this patch is a bit different. The problem here is not > the size of the fdb entries, itʼs more the number of them - having > 96000 entries (even if they were 1 byte ones) is just way too much > especially when the fdb hash size is small and static. We could work > on making it dynamic though, but still these type of local entries > per vlan per port can easily be avoided with this option. 96000 bits can be stored in 12k. Get where I'm going with this? Look at the problem sideways.
