[c-nsp] Sup 720 dual engine configurations

[Mark Tohill]

Matthew,

Thanks for reply.

Options are limited ok.

Does this mean that each and all (48 on blade, two on Sup720) ports
should be treated identically regarding connectivity? It sounds pretty
much like it.

I suppose another failing in this is if we are running IOS and the MSFc
were to fail. All functionality gone, right?

According to "Data Center Infrastructure Architecture"
On
http://www.cisco.com/application/pdf/en/us/guest/netsol/ns304/c649/cdcco
nt_0900aecd800ea160.pdf

"The Supervisor 2 (Sup2) and Sup720 are both recommended, but this
design guide is intended for use
with Sup2. Another design guide will describe the use of Sup720, which
provides higher performance
and additional functionalities in hardware and is the best choice to
build a 10-Gigabit Ethernet data
center infrastructure.."

I never did find that document on Sup720. Has anyone else?

Thanks,
Mark




-----Original Message-----
From: matthew zeier [mailto:mrz at velvet.org] 
Sent: 19 April 2006 15:12
To: Mark Tohill
Cc: cisco-nsp at puck.nether.net
Subject: Re: [c-nsp] Sup 720 dual engine configurations



Mark Tohill wrote:
> Just on that same thread, I was wondering has anyone thoughts on how
> best to connect two 6509 Chassis with one Sup720 in each and one
> (6748)Gig blade each.

> What I'm asking is if there is a way to interconnect this kit to
> minimize downtime and maximize resiliency, what is it? Is it better to
> use, for example, the 2 x gig ports on each Sup720 to connect to other
> Sup or better to use blade ports? Or maybe it doesn't matter...??

I've thought about it since I'll be faced with the same in a couple
weeks.

I'm going to use a multi-port port-channel between the two boxes with at

  least one port off the Sup and one off the line card.  In the event 
that I lose the LC, I won't lose connectivity.  If I lose the Sup, well,

box is dead anyways.

Like you said -  your options are limited but this is probably the best 
you can do.