[c-nsp] 6500 w/sup32 as BGP edge router?

Thu Feb 3 12:07:30 EST 2005

No, that is incorrect. Current plan is to have IOS by the end of the CY.

Tim

At 02:44 AM 2/3/2005, Tantsura, Jeff uttered:

>Tim,
>
>I was told that there is no roadmap for sup32 with IOS.
>Is this information correct?
>
>Thanks in advance,
>Jeff
>
>-----Original Message-----
>From: Tim Stevenson [mailto:tstevens at cisco.com]
>
>Sent: Wednesday, February 02, 2005 5:35 PM
>To: Rodney Dunn; Tantsura, Jeff
>Cc: Rutger Bevaart; cisco-nsp at puck.nether.net
>Subject: Re: [c-nsp] 6500 w/sup32 as BGP edge router?
>
>At 07:17 AM 2/2/2005, Rodney Dunn commented:
> >If it were me I'd not go with a software forwarding
> >platform if I was concerned about large volumes
> >od DDOS traffic that needed to be evaluated
> >and dropped.
>
>Sup32 is not a software forwarding platform.
>
>
> >  I'd look at something with some
> >hardware dropping capability.
> >
> >7304/NSE100, 76xx(sup720), or GSR.
>
>Given the correct software, Sup32 will have all the same CPU rate
>limiters
>
>as sup720, these are a function of the PFC3B, which sup32 comes with by
>
>default.
>
>That said, the software roadmap is such that we won't have L3 capability
>on
>
>this sup at FCS, so hybrid & later native support will be required to
>get
>
>the L3 functionality & the L3 CPU rate limiters (L2 RLs supported at
>FCS).
>
> >The sup720 combination has a lot more functionality
> >in regards to hardware rate limiters to help
> >you protect the RP for various traffic types and
> >ACL's.
>
>The MSFC3 CPU is slightly higher horsepower than MSFC2A of sup32 & has
>more
>
>DRAM by default; and of course, the fabric capacity and thus potential
>
>performance is MUCH higher for sup720 vs sup32. For relatively low-speed
>
>WAN links and BGP peering, sup32 should be adequate.
>
>
> >If you connection links are small and the software
> >forwarding CPU is fast enough you can do things
> >like CoPP to protect the CPU but even with that
> >if you get high enough rates you can overrun the
> >CPU.  It all depends on the deployment.
>
>Again, this is a h/w forwarding sup, it uses FIB/ADJ model just like
>
>sup720. CoPP will be supported in sup32 when native s/w is available. In
>
>terms of BGP peering, when L3 s/w is available, this will be possible &
>
>supported, the RP is MSFC2a, which is virtually identical to MSFC2 on
>sup2.
>
>In any case, if you need to do peering today, sup720 is the best option.
>
>Tim
>
>
> >Rodney
> >
> >On Wed, Feb 02, 2005 at 02:33:14PM +0100, Tantsura, Jeff wrote:
> > >
> > > Rutger,
> > >
> > > According to Cisco sup32 will at least in the begin come with CATOS
> > > only, so no BGP/fancy things.
> > > I'd go for 7200 GE option.
> > >
> > > Jeff
> > >
> > > -----Original Message-----
> > > From: cisco-nsp-bounces at puck.nether.net
> > > [mailto:cisco-nsp-bounces at puck.nether.net] On Behalf Of Rutger
>Bevaart
> > > Sent: Wednesday, February 02, 2005 1:23 PM
> > > To: cisco-nsp at puck.nether.net
> > > Subject: [c-nsp] 6500 w/sup32 as BGP edge router?
> > >
> > >
> > > hello list,
> > >
> > > i'm currently evaluating possibilities for an edge router with the
> > > following requirements,
> > >
> > > - able to handle at least three full BGP4 feeds (~160K routes);
> > > - future proof to implement IPv6 in the coming two years, including
>full
> > > feeds;
> > > - relative low bandwidth requirements (10 - 40Mbps);
> > > - two Gbit ethernet ports to local colo and server LAN(s);
> > > - most connections will be ethernet, possibly one or two STM1 / OC3;
> > > - resistent against DDoS attacks - able to handle a few hundred
>Mbits of
> > > DDoS traffic until we can resolve it with upstream peers;
> > > - low cost;
> > >
> > > the options i've covered so far include,
> > >
> > > - 7204VXR / 7206VXR using NPE400 or NPE-GE;
> > > - 7301 or 7304-NSR;
> > > - 6503 with Sup32;
> > >
> > > right now i have the feeling that the 6500 route would cost-wise be
>a
> > > very
> > > smart choice. the sup32 offers 15Mpps (cisco spec) that should cover
>the
> > > DDos part. the embedded 8 gbit ethernet ports come in handy for the
> > > upstreams and downstream connections. adding a flexwan slot will
>bring
> > > in
> > > the STM1 connectivity.
> > >
> > > on the other hand, it is no a pure routing platform such as a 7304
>with
> > > NSE (that does 3.5Mpps according to cisco).
> > >
> > > this has probably been discussed to death (pardon my ignorance) but
>how
> > > would the 6503 scenario stand against the general routing platforms
>such
> > > as the 7304?
> > >
> > > regards
> > > Rutger Bevaart
> > >
> > > URL:
> > >
>http://www.cisco.com/en/US/products/hw/modules/ps2797/products_data_shee
> > > t0900aecd801c5cab.html
> > >
> > >
> > > _______________________________________________
> > > cisco-nsp mailing list  cisco-nsp at puck.nether.net
> > > https://puck.nether.net/mailman/listinfo/cisco-nsp
> > > archive at http://puck.nether.net/pipermail/cisco-nsp/
> > >
> > > This message contains information that may be privileged or
>
> > confidential and is the property of the Capgemini Group. It is
>intended
>
> > only for the person to whom it is addressed. If you are not the
>intended
>
> > recipient,  you are not authorized to read, print, retain, copy,
>
> > disseminate,  distribute, or use this message or any part thereof. If
>you
>
> > receive this  message in error, please notify the sender immediately
>and
>
> > delete all  copies of this message.
> > >
> > >
> > > _______________________________________________
> > > cisco-nsp mailing list  cisco-nsp at puck.nether.net
> > > https://puck.nether.net/mailman/listinfo/cisco-nsp
> > > archive at http://puck.nether.net/pipermail/cisco-nsp/
> >_______________________________________________
> >cisco-nsp mailing list  cisco-nsp at puck.nether.net
> >https://puck.nether.net/mailman/listinfo/cisco-nsp
> >archive at http://puck.nether.net/pipermail/cisco-nsp/
>
>
>
>Tim Stevenson, tstevens at cisco.com
>Routing & Switching CCIE #5561
>Technical Marketing Engineer, Catalyst 6500
>Cisco Systems, http://www.cisco.com
>IP Phone: 408-526-6759
>********************************************************
>The contents of this message may be *Cisco Confidential*
>and are intended for the specified recipients only.
>
>This message contains information that may be privileged or confidential 
>and is the property of the Capgemini Group. It is intended only for the 
>person to whom it is addressed. If you are not the intended 
>recipient,  you are not authorized to read, print, retain, copy, 
>disseminate,  distribute, or use this message or any part thereof. If you 
>receive this  message in error, please notify the sender immediately and 
>delete all  copies of this message.

Tim Stevenson, tstevens at cisco.com
Routing & Switching CCIE #5561
Technical Marketing Engineer, Catalyst 6500
Cisco Systems, http://www.cisco.com
IP Phone: 408-526-6759
********************************************************
The contents of this message may be *Cisco Confidential*
and are intended for the specified recipients only.