[nsp] Catalyst 6500 Hybrid

[Church, Chuck]

Steinar,

	Do you have a URL that mentions this?  I've been looking for 20
minutes and haven't found anything on CCO.  Didn't find anything that
first off mentions that uRPF doubles the TCAM usage, much less anything
that says the 720 no longer behaves like this.  Must be pretty well
hidden.

Thanks,

Chuck Church
Lead Design Engineer
CCIE #8776, MCNE, MCSE
Wam!Net Government Services - Design & Implementation Team
13665 Dulles Technology Dr. Ste 250
Herndon, VA 20171
Office: 703-480-2569
Cell: 703-819-3495
cchurch at wamnetgov.com
PGP key:
http://pgp.mit.edu:11371/pks/lookup?op=index&search=cchurch%40wamnetgov.
com
-----Original Message-----
From: sthaug at nethelp.no [mailto:sthaug at nethelp.no] 
Sent: Sunday, May 02, 2004 3:40 AM
To: Church, Chuck
Cc: bryan at tec-works.com; cisco-nsp at puck.nether.net
Subject: RE: [nsp] Catalyst 6500 Hybrid

> 	If you're going 6500, might as well do the sup720.  It's only
about 
> $1000 more than the sup2/msfc2/pfc2 with 256 mb.  And you've got
> 512 mb RAM right off the bat.

Gree about the price, the Sup720 seems like clearly better value for the
money.

> Keep in might that if you're doing uRPF as a security measure, neither

> will work that well if you exceed 128,000 unicast routes, since the 
> PFCs max out at that.

Misunderstanding. This applies to the Sup2/PFC2, which has 256K hardware
entries in the TCAM and gets halved if you turn on uRPF. The Sup720 also
has 256K entries, but does *not* experience the "halving" when turning
on uRPF. (This is documented on Cisco's web site, but you need to look
for it...)

Steinar Haug, Nethelp consulting, sthaug at nethelp.no