[c-nsp] MWAM module on 6500/7600

[Rodney Dunn]

I fail to follow your summarization argument because
whether they are in the chassis or one hop back as
7301's at the end of the day it's the same thing.
Those CPU's on the MWAM still look like normal
routing protocol neighbors off a VLAN. Or maybe
it's just a scenario of routing the /32's I'm not following.

What I mean was the 7301's would replace the MWAM and the
chassis would still frontend it. Your performance would
be better with the 7301's because you don't share the memory
space. The MWAM is a G1 processor with both CPU's used and they
share a common packet memory space.

Not to mention the release schedule issues with the MWAM for
no SSG bug fix type scenarios.

As for cost I guess you can cut it up however you like.

The board was never designed or targeted for broadband support
so use it at your own risk.

Rodney


On Tue, Nov 08, 2005 at 04:29:47PM +0000, Kristofer Sigurdsson wrote:
> On Tue, 2005-11-08 at 08:21 -0500, Rodney Dunn wrote:
> > The MWAM was originally developed for mobile wireless stuff.
> > 
> > Then folks realized it was "sorta" like 6 NPE-G1's on a blade
> > so they could hack it up in all kinds of different solutions
> > like (mGRE termination, some broadband usage, high density
> > GRE termination for large neighbor counts, etc..).
> > 
> > However, it's not the exact same as 6 NPE-G1's. I'd use
> > 6 7301's instead.
> 
> > It's easier to manage in my opinion because the packet flow
> > and troubleshooting to/from that blade can be pretty hard
> > to follow. To and from a stack of 7301's is much easier to
> > follow in my opinion.
> 
> Assuming static IP's for the clients, clients distributed between
> the boxes in ways that make summarization impossible, the six 7301
> way would probably mean distribution of host routes (in this case
> up to 32,000 host routes to the network) *or* for all of the six 
> routers to announce a summary route and then distribute the traffic 
> among themselves (meaning that 5/6 of the traffic reaching each box is 
> meant for another one, creating load) *or* for at least two of the 
> 7301's just being dedicated as upstream routers for the broadband 
> aggregation boxes (announcing a summary route "out" and taking in host 
> routes from the aggregation boxes).
> 
> This means you need eight 7301's to achieve the same as you could use 
> one 7600 + MWAM.  If memory serves me right, the 7600 + MWAM combo 
> costs roughly the same as three 7301's...also, the 7600 is a much more
> scalable box, feature and throughput-wise...
> 
> There's always the argument about putting all your eggs in one basket,
> but you could probably buy two 7600's with MWAM's for the price of that
> 7301 farm, getting a fully redundant setup.
> 
> Am I missing something here?
> 
> -Kristofer