[c-nsp] PPPoE termination on 2620

[Dennis Peng]

Robert E.Seastrom [rs at seastrom.com] wrote:
> 
> Dennis Peng <dpeng at cisco.com> writes:
> 
> > While PPPoEoE will work on the 2620, it isn't officially "supported"
> > (we don't test broadband aggregation features on the low-end
> > platforms). That said, I doubt you will have problems with this type
> > of application. The 2600 has a maximum upper limit of 300 interfaces,
> > so that is one constraint. But I believe the CPU will be a bigger
> > constraint. I don't know how many sessions you are thinking or what
> > type of traffic load you expect in these deployments, but just keep an
> > eye on the CPU and you should be fine.
> 
> According to my sources, under 12.2T, 12.3, and 12.3T, the number of
> IDBs goes to 800 (from the 300 you mentioned in previous releases) on
> the 2600 platform.

Your source is correct. :) Goes to show what you get for looking at
old code... :)

> Does a PPPoE(oE) interface eat one IDB, or two?  I'm doing some
> similar stuff (running PPPoE(oE) on
> non-supported-but-the-code-is-there platforms) and watching my CPU, so
> I'm kinda curious...  "show idb" shows that it eats a hardware IDB,
> but is there a software IDB in play too?

It uses one hwidb and one swidb. The IDB limit applies to the swidb,
and since the number of swidb is always equal or greater then hwidb's,
swidb's are the ones you need to worry about.

Dennis

> Thanks,
> 
>                                         ---Rob
>