[nsp] [article]: Filters on routers: The price of performance

[Hank Nussbacher]

At 03:09 PM 16-07-03 -0500, Ejay Hire wrote:

rather than bitch here, did any1 send his/her findings to 
dnewman at networktest.com and to the executive editor - agaffin at nww.com ?

-hank

>I received a response to my query about the configs, and here are my
>observations.
>Disclaimer:  I haven't had a chance to test these, but my gut tells me
>this want a fair fight based on the following.
>
>1.  The static routes are pointed to Ethernet interfaces, not hosts...
>So the router will arp for every packet.
>2.  The box didn't have CEF enabled, which most cluefuls would enable if
>trying to maximize throughput.
>3.  No logging console was not in the config, and every deny in the ACL
>was set to log.  This will generate an interrupt for every ACL match
>going through the box.
>
>-Ejay
>
>
>"Ejay Hire" <ejay.hire at isdn.net> writes:
>
> > What I don't get is how they got the really shabby numbers from the
>Cisco.  I just performed a similar test of throughput with a couple of
>2501's back to back with large ACL's applied and didn't get results that
>bad  (measuring throughput and latency with 64k and 1524 byte packets,
>originated from a Linux box with traffic generator support, to various
>source and destination ip's across a two serial interfaces with external
>csu-dsu's configured to emulate t1 circuits.  Each serial interface
>configured for hdlc with a 50 line ACL in place.).  Did they have
>Multilink enabled and route-caching disabled with d cef turned off?
>I've forwarded a request to the website for information about the
>testing methodology.
> >
> > -Ejay
> >
> > -----Original Message-----
> > From: Voralt [mailto:peder at voralt.net]
> > Sent: Tuesday, July 15, 2003 11:27 AM
> > To: cisco-nsp at puck.nether.net
> > Subject: Re: [nsp] [article]: Filters on routers: The price of
>performance
> >
> > Just another ridiculous magazine "real world test".  I like how they
>don't
> > take price into account, by comparing a $14k Lucent to a $11k Tasman
>to a
> > $6200 Cisco to a $3600 ImageStream.  If that's the case, then I would
>say,
> > compare apples to apples, set a max price of say $14k and then compare
>the
> > highest end prodct from each vendor at that price.  The Cisco 3725 is
> > $10,500 and the 3745 is $14k (by their numbers).
> >
> > Also, why did they use two 10M connections instead of one 100M
>connection.
> > That seems a little odd to me.
> >
> >
> > ----- Original Message -----
> > From: "Ejay Hire" <ejay.hire at isdn.net>
> > To: <cisco-nsp at puck.nether.net>
> > Sent: Tuesday, July 15, 2003 10:51 AM
> > Subject: RE: [nsp] [article]: Filters on routers: The price of
>performance
> >
> >
> > > Hi all.  Anyone else take exception to this?  My real-world and Lab
> > experiences with the 2600 series don't come anywhere close the latency
>and
> > throughput issues they describe.
> >
> > -Ejay
> >
>
>_______________________________________________
>cisco-nsp mailing list  cisco-nsp at puck.nether.net
>http://puck.nether.net/mailman/listinfo/cisco-nsp
>archive at http://puck.nether.net/pipermail/cisco-nsp/