[c-nsp] PA-POS-2OC3

[Bill Wichers]

> Rodney Dunn <rodunn at cisco.com> writes:
>
>> And if at some point in the future you upgrade and
>> the setup stops working because modules are powered
>> down automatically don't be suprised.
>> That documentation is provided for a reason.

Unless there is the possibility of the unsupported combination actually
causing damage to the router, I don't see the reasoning behind such a
drastic "feature". Traffic engineering should be the responsibility of
those that designed the *network*, not the *router*. I don't think we ever
run all our router ports at line speed at the same time, but one or two
ports might well hit line speed during brief traffic bursts. This isn't a
problem for the routers, it shouldn't be made into a problem with
artificial means. A warning about "don't expect great performance from x
configuration" should be enough.

[snip]
> I know I'm not alone in running gigabit ethernets in colocation
> facilities with substantially less than 100 MBPS on them.  Why?  Very
> simple.  To reduce distance problems, I generally run fiber when going
> outside the cage... and 1000-SX is more common than 100-FX.

Just to add a bit to this reasoning, I see gigabit ethernet used
frequently in applications of 10-20 Mb/s in CWDM systems where the reason
for the gigE is the good availibility of CWDM GBICs. All the 100FX stuff
is stuck at one wavelength. If you have a campus and need several
wavelengths, gigE is often the most cost effective solution even if it's
lots more bandwidth than a given building needs. Just one more example of
an application where there is no need for line speed on all ports...

Geez cisco guys... Not everything is in the core :-)

     -Bill

*****************************
Waveform Technology
UNIX Systems Administrator