[c-nsp] Cisco 7600 Vs Cisco 6500

[Alex Rubenstein]

>> The 7600 is a 6500, but in a package 'real service providers' can deal
>> with. The 6500 can handle all of the line cards a 7600 can, LAN, WAN, or
>> whatever.
>
> Yes, but they're developed by two different business units, right?

I can't speak to that, but it doesn't seem feasible -- at least on the 
techinical or development side.


> And the 6500, as someone stated, will run CatOS which will not as far
> as I know, support the 7600 WAN cards.

I don't know this either. I think this is more a Sup thing, not a chassis 
thing -- ie, you don't run CatOS on a Sup720, etc.


> And yes, the business unit cites the 7600 as being able to do what the
> 7200/7500 does, including taking most PAs (if you have the right
> linecards, but that's true to for any platform).

Phooey.

FlexWAN stinks, and the 6500/7600 can't do a bunch of stuff that the 7500 
can (L2TPv3, L2TPv3/Martini interworking, etc.). The 6500/7600 makes an 
elite packet pusher (gigs and gigs and gigs -- I know of sup2/msfc2 boxes 
doing 10 gigs and not really complaining), but is seriously lacking in 
features for the whacky stuff that some SP's do; the 7200/7500 fills this 
gap, but at speeds of 100 megs or less.


> And whoever keeps calling the 7600 a "switch" and dismiss it, should just
> as easily call the 12000 an ATM switch, just because it has a cellbased
> backplane. The 7600 business unit tries to do a lot of what the 12000 unit
> does with their WAN linecards. Look at the SIP-600 which will basically do
> everything the new engine5 cards for the GSR does ... at the same price,
> which kind of takes away the reason to switch if you already have GSRs.

You don't have much of an arguement from me here -- but it is semantics. 
The 6500 and 7600 will push (route) layer 3 packets. They do this with the 
same linecards and supervisors.

While I have the microphone, I'd love to take this moment to voice my only 
real complaint about the s2/msfc2 6509. Why is there no control-plane on 
this box, so that it doesn't fall over and die anytime the msfc/sup is 
attacked? Why does cisco abandon this, forcing all to move the sup720? 
There are some of us who don't need 720's, or want to run that nutty code 
(12.2SX or whatever).

-- 
Alex Rubenstein, AR97, K2AHR, alex at nac.net, latency, Al Reuben
Net Access Corporation, 800-NET-ME-36, http://www.nac.net