[c-nsp] Re: 7500 PPPoE dCEF aggregation

[Rodney Dunn]

This is what I was talking about the last time
I looked at was not supported and was told there
were no plans to port this support in the dCEF
path for the 75xx.

http://www.cisco.com/en/US/products/sw/iosswrel/ps5207/products_feature_guide09186a00801d1dfd.html

Rodney

On Mon, Jan 17, 2005 at 05:08:44PM -0500, Rodney Dunn wrote:
> Gert,
> 
> There is a 2048 IDB limit on the 75xx and it
> will most likely never be increased.  There
> are multiple reasons why this box is not
> recommended for broadband aggregation.
> 
> a) Originally we didn't have dCEF support
>    for VA interfaces.  This did get added
>    at some point along the way I think
>    as part of dLFI and not directly to
>    support broadband aggregation.
> 
> b) IPC communication between the VIP and
>    RSP can become a bottleneck for large
>    numbers of interfaces with features
>    applied.
> 
> There is also one feature that I know of
> that wasn't supported when I last looked
> at it and that was VLAN unnumbered support.
> 
> This platform is not tested in this deployment
> scenario also.
> 
> If it were me looking for a platform to do
> broadband aggregation I would not look at the
> 75xx for this purpose.
> 
> 72xx/G1, 7301, 10k are the most commonly used
> boxes for this space that I have seen.
> 
> I don't recall if there was a discussion about
> the MWAM blade for the 76xx to do this functionality
> or not.
> 
> My 2c. based on experience....
> 
> Rodney
> 
> On Mon, Jan 17, 2005 at 05:10:36AM +0100, Gert Doering wrote:
> > Hi,
> > 
> > On Sun, Jan 16, 2005 at 04:29:03PM -0500, Joe Maimon wrote:
> > > As it stands, both GRE and L2TP are dCEF on the 7500 platform, I dont 
> > > see how PPPoE which has only a 8 byte header compared to GRE's 24 would 
> > > be so much harder.
> > 
> > Out of curiosity: for these tunnels which VIP does the encapsulation work?
> > The VIP that has the outgoing interface corresponding to the "tunnel dest"
> > IP?  Or can you tie GRE/L2TP processing to a specific VIP (sort of like 
> > the Juniper Tunnel PIC)?
> > 
> > Back on topic, I think the 7200/NPE-G1 or 7301 are very interesting boxes
> > here - much less real estate, much faster primary CPU, and a fast second
> > CPU that Cisco is already working on, implementing these nice things...
> > 
> > gert
> > 
> > -- 
> > USENET is *not* the non-clickable part of WWW!
> >                                                            //www.muc.de/~gert/
> > Gert Doering - Munich, Germany                             gert at greenie.muc.de
> > fax: +49-89-35655025                        gert at net.informatik.tu-muenchen.de
> > _______________________________________________
> > 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/