[c-nsp] Re: Cisco 7600 vs Juniper M7i
Ian Cox
icox at cisco.com
Thu Jun 2 14:15:14 EDT 2005
At 12:37 PM 6/2/2005 -0500, Church, Chuck wrote:
>Thanks, Ian. I was thinking more about the Flexwans, which are really a
>close relative of the VIP, right?
Yes, and No. The QoS code is related between the two, the forwarding
is different.
> I haven't had any experience with the
>OSMs. Those use the Sup's PFC for forwarding, even if source and dest
>is 2 different ints/subints on the same OSM?
Yes, and the same applies to FlexWAN.
>If so, I retract my
>previous statement! That would seem to address the 'VIP running at 99%'
>issue we sometimes see under DOS'es. The new SIP-200 had a PPS rating
>associated with it, I'm assuming that one doesn't use the PFC?
FlexWAN, Enhanced FlexWAN, 7600-SIP-200, 7600-SIP-400 all use the
PFCx in the system to perform the packet forwarding decision, and
security ACLs. QoS related functions, queuing, QoS ACLs, marking
policing are all performed upon the listed line cards. This was done
to allow traffic to be placed into queues without having to mark the
traffic. The OSMs are different in they use the PFCx QoS ACLs for
marking/policing traffic, and can only place traffic into queues
based on vlan/DSCP/EXP bits.
The SIP-200 has a bandwidth and PPS number associated with it because
it takes resources to queue packets to go out the interface. Even
with the PFCx doing the forwarding and security work the CPUs/NPUs
used on the various WAN cards have to perform the QoS features.
Ian
>Chuck Church
>Lead Design Engineer
>CCIE #8776, MCNE, MCSE
>Netco Government Services - Design & Implementation
>1210 N. Parker Rd.
>Greenville, SC 29609
>Home office: 864-335-9473
>Cell: 703-819-3495
>cchurch at netcogov.com
>PGP key: http://pgp.mit.edu:11371/pks/lookup?op=get&search=0x4371A48D
>
>
>-----Original Message-----
>From: Ian Cox [mailto:icox at cisco.com]
>Sent: Thursday, June 02, 2005 12:56 PM
>To: Simon Leinen; Church, Chuck
>Cc: cisco-nsp at puck.nether.net
>Subject: Re: [c-nsp] Re: Cisco 7600 vs Juniper M7i
>
>At 04:54 PM 6/2/2005 +0200, Simon Leinen wrote:
> >Church, Chuck writes:
> > > Is this really a fair fight though? You're comparing a router
> > > against a high-end layer 3 switch on just Ethernet. Everything they
> > > tested was things the 7600 can do on the PFC.
> >
> >Note that PFC3B/PFC3B-XL can do many things (IPv4/IPv6 uni/multicast,
> >MPLS, various forms of tunnel encapsulations, IPv4/IPv6 Netflow (they
> >can only export IPv4 flows for now though), many kinds of QoS)...
> >
> > > I'd expect the Cisco to destroy the Juniper on that. Now if they'd
> > > tested OC-x interfaces, that'd have been a totally different story,
> > > I bet.
> >
> >We have a few OC-12c and OC-48c POS interfaces (OSMs) on the 7600, and
> >they perform fine. They are quite expensive though, the port density
> >isn't that impressive, and they cannot use the Sup720 switching fabric
> >(but the 32 Gbps legacy bus supports quite a few of them). Forwarding
> >is done by the PFC even for these interfaces.
>
>The OSMs do use the Sup720 switch fabric to move packets between line
>cards, running at 8Gbps. They use the bus just to pass the packet
>headers to the PFCx to make the forwarding decision.
>
>wodonga#sh mod
>Mod Ports Card Type Model
>Serial No.
>--- ----- -------------------------------------- ------------------
>-----------
> 1 4 2-port CHOC-12/DS0
>SI OSM-2CHOC12/T1-SI SAD0625024U
> 2 24 CEF720 24 port 1000mb
>SFP WS-X6724-SFP SAL08394EXH
> 3 4 2-port OC-12c ATM MM+ OSM-2OC12-ATM-MM
> 4 0 4-subslot SPA Interface
>Processor-200 7600-SIP-200 JAB080504XZ
> 5 2 Supervisor Engine 720
>(Active) WS-SUP720-BASE SAD07170004
> 7 4 2-port OC-48c POS
>SM OSM-2OC48/1DPT-SS SAD060202HU
> 8 4 1-port OC-48c POS
>SM OSM-1OC48-POS-SS SAD0537012R
> 9 16 SFM-capable 16 port 1000mb
>GBIC WS-X6516-GBIC SAD044908G9
>
>wodonga#sh fabric status all
> slot channel speed module fabric
> status status
> 1 0 8G OK OK
> 2 0 20G OK OK
> 3 0 8G OK OK
> 4 0 20G OK OK
> 5 0 20G OK OK
> 7 0 8G OK OK
> 8 0 8G OK OK
> 9 0 8G OK OK
>
>
>
>
> >The SPA/SIP modules that Simon mentioned should improve choice of
> >ports, port density, and performance (I think these carrier cards *do*
> >have fabric attachments).
>
>The Enhanced FlexWAN, all OSMs, 7600-SIP-200, 7600-SIP-400 all have
>fabric connections.
>
>
>Ian
>
> >--
> >Simon.
> >
> >_______________________________________________
> >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/
More information about the cisco-nsp
mailing list