On Thu, Dec 06, 2001 at 03:28:21PM -0600, Chris Watson wrote:
>
> > That's a very poor use of the potential of the M5. The M5 is heavily
> > overspecified for this function. You could easily do what you've got
> > there with a 3600. Having said that, the 3600, 7200 and the 7500 are
> > totally outclassed with respect to sheer grunt and port density. The
> > M5 has similar grunt to the original GSR (nearest to the 12004 which
> > never got beyond the beta stage or even the 12008 with it's original
> > line cards!). The 10xxx range might also be considered similarly
> > specified as might the 12404. Neither of these seem appropriate for
> > your requirements (4 x T1 & 4 x FE).
>
> If that was all it was ever going to do yes. I realize thats *alot* of iron.
> But you have to realize this is a cable company, that is deploying a fiber
> ring around the city, and has plans to offer VoIP and other whacky things as
> well. I want them to have a router they can use now and grow into as they
> need to. The M5 appears to scale very nicely for their plans. Even though as
> configured its alot of iron to throw at 4 T's and a FE link. I like looking a
> bit beyond 2 feet in front of me.
Yeah, great choice if you intend to light SR/IR fiber as well as
if you need to upgrade to OC12/GE. The only thing that I can see that
would compare on the cisco side (at least for your specific site use)
would be a 7206 VXR w/ PA-MC-8T1 + 4xPA-FE. But yeah, you have a lot
of room for growth and I suspect you will see excellent life out of
the router as it can be used later for and edge site as your
location grows, IMHO.
- Jared
-- Jared Mauch | pgp key available via finger from jared@puck.nether.net clue++; | http://puck.nether.net/~jared/ My statements are only mine.
This archive was generated by hypermail 2b29 : Mon Aug 05 2002 - 10:42:38 EDT