[c-nsp] PA-POS-2OC3

[Rodney Dunn]

Let me comment before this gets out of hand
for no reason.

My comments while stimulated from this thread
were not about the 72xx BW point issue specifically.

It was more a general comment about something
else that needs to be considered when someone
decides they want to run in an unsupported
configuration.  I really don't have the time
to go in a long debate about it and honestly
I see both sides of the fence about the topic
of running stuff in a configuration declared
unsupported by the vendor.

As for the 72xx BW point issue I'll let you
guess what my view is since I was the one that
got this implemented:

CSCdw14551
Externally found cosmetic defect: Resolved (R)
Request to print PCI BW point usage in show version output
Submitted: rodunn

Rodney


On Mon, Nov 29, 2004 at 12:21:32PM -0500, Bill Wichers wrote:
> > 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
>