I'm not totally sure, but i have heard some major
perf enhancements as with L2TP somewhen in 12.2
regards
--Zoltan
PS: does Juno do xDSL? ;)
-----Eredeti üzenet-----
Feladó: Adrian Mardlin [mailto:Adrian@nildram.net]
Küldve: 2002. január 30. 17:43
Címzett: Kinczli Zoltán; 'cisco-nsp@puck.nether.net'
Tárgy: RE: [nsp] [nsp] performance of an IO-GE+E vs PA-GE
Mostly 12.1.7 or 12.1.5(T7) or JunOS :-)
> -----Original Message-----
> From: Kinczli Zoltán [mailto:Zoltan.Kinczli@Synergon.hu]
> Sent: 30 January 2002 16:25
> To: Adrian Mardlin; cisco-nsp@puck.nether.net
> Subject: RE: [nsp] [nsp] performance of an IO-GE+E vs PA-GE
>
>
> Hello,
>
> I agree with you: it's not a tipical real word app: 8000 user @
> 100Mbps
> yields around 13kbps/user. So basically it's a demontration of the
> capability
> to terminate the 8000 users, it's not the demonstration of the
> performance.
>
> on the 50kpps: I'm just curious, which ios are you running?
>
> Thanks,
> --Zoltan
>
> -----Eredeti üzenet-----
> Feladó: Adrian Mardlin [mailto:Adrian@nildram.net]
> Küldve: 2002. január 30. 17:18
> Címzett: Kinczli Zoltán; 'cisco-nsp@puck.nether.net'
> Tárgy: RE: [nsp] [nsp] performance of an IO-GE+E vs PA-GE
>
>
> Hmm, I find it hard to believe that will work in a real world
> situation.
> Our experience shows that an NPE-300 runs out of CPU at about
> 50,000pps
> (Cisco claim 300,000pps) doing normal IP routing, and about 1500 L2TP
> terminations.
>
> > -----Original Message-----
> > From: Kinczli Zoltán [mailto:Zoltan.Kinczli@Synergon.hu]
> > Sent: 30 January 2002 15:56
> > To: Adrian Mardlin; cisco-nsp@puck.nether.net
> > Subject: RE: [nsp] [nsp] performance of an IO-GE+E vs PA-GE
> >
> >
> > Hello Adrian,
> >
> > Thanks for your input, but according to an independent
> > test, with 12.1(5)T
> > 8000 sessions has been demonstrated. (pppoA/pppoE) but the
> > peek load was 100Mbps,
> > see attachment.
> >
> > From other hand, as with 12.2(4)B there is PXF support for L2TP.
> >
> > Anybody out there running a 720xVXR with an io-ge, who
> can tell me
> > if it performs over 200mbps fdx or not?
> >
> >
> > regards, thanks again!
> >
> > --Zoltan
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> > -----Eredeti üzenet-----
> > Feladó: Adrian Mardlin [mailto:Adrian@nildram.net]
> > Küldve: 2002. január 30. 16:50
> > Címzett: Kinczli Zoltán; 'cisco-nsp@puck.nether.net'
> > Tárgy: RE: [nsp] [nsp] performance of an IO-GE+E vs PA-GE
> >
> >
> > Until CISCO introduce L2TP support on the PXFs, you won't be
> > able to run more than about 1500 L2TP sessions without
> > running out of CPU anyway.
> >
> > > -----Original Message-----
> > > From: Kinczli Zoltán [mailto:Zoltan.Kinczli@Synergon.hu]
> > > Sent: 30 January 2002 15:29
> > > To: cisco-nsp@puck.nether.net
> > > Subject: [nsp] [nsp] performance of an IO-GE+E vs PA-GE
> > >
> > >
> > > Hello,
> > >
> > > Anybody can tell me about the performance of the
> io-ge+e's GigaEth
> > > port?
> > >
> > > The PA-GE peeks at 400mbps (that is 200mbps full duplex).
> > > On the 7400
> > > the two
> > > onboard gigaeth's perform at higer rate, provided the
> traffic flows
> > > between them.
> > >
> > > What i'm currently investigating: if a 7206VXR w NSE-1 can
> > > handle 8000
> > > adsl
> > > users and if i count only 64kbps per user it results in
> > > 500mbps. Does it
> > > make
> > > sense to install two or three PA-A3 into the box? (We
> > receive the L2TP
> > > tunnels
> > > via atm PVCs.)
> > >
> > > The CPU handles 300kpps, say the avg.pak size is 512Byte
> > > (300000*512*8=< 1Gbps),
> > > so CPU-wisely it's ok. It's roughly OK with two PA-A3's
> > 'distributed'
> > > between the
> > > two PCI busses.
> > >
> > > BUT: how does the traffic exit from the router? A
> PA-GE peeks at
> > > 200mbps, as we said.
> > > What about an IO-GE+E's GE?
> > >
> > > I simply can't find any info on the IO-GE's performance.
> > >
> > > thanks in advance,
> > >
> > > --zoltan
> > >
> > >
> >
>
>
This archive was generated by hypermail 2b29 : Sun Aug 04 2002 - 04:13:30 EDT