[c-nsp] Your opinions on router throughput

[Tony Varriale]

There were a lot of opinions that were expressed that were not necessarily 
on-topic and somewhat in left field.  But, you chose to focus on my 
posts...once again.

I'm more than willing to take this off-list if you feel some sort of 
attraction to my posts.  This way we can keep this on-topic for the original 
poster.

tv
----- Original Message ----- 
From: "Gert Doering" <gert at greenie.muc.de>
To: "Tony Varriale" <tvarriale at comcast.net>
Cc: <cisco-nsp at puck.nether.net>
Sent: Sunday, October 29, 2006 3:29 PM
Subject: Re: [c-nsp] Your opinions on router throughput


> Hi,
>
> On Sun, Oct 29, 2006 at 12:01:53PM -0600, Tony Varriale wrote:
>> Have you ever seen a non-hardware based Cisco products do MLPPP?
>
> Indeed...
>
> Cisco-M-XIII>sh ppp mu
>
> Multilink200, bundle name XXXX
>  Bundle up for 6w2d
>  570 lost fragments, 18471806 reordered, 0 unassigned
>  57 discarded, 0 lost received, 1/255 load
>  0x18CE3E received sequence, 0x7A8F55 sent sequence
>  Member links: 2 active, 0 inactive (max not set, min not set)
>    Se3/7:0, since 2w5d, last rcvd seq 18CE3C
>    Se3/3:0, since 3d12h, last rcvd seq 18CE3D
>
> Cisco-M-XIII>sh ver
> ...
> cisco 7206VXR (NPE225) processor (revision A) with 114688K/16384K
> ...
>
> Of course this box is not very heavily loaded - the MLPPP bundles
> are only 2x E1 each.  Add to that a few more E1s, one channelized E3,
> and two T3s and two E3s, with usually about 40-50 Mbit/s peak passing
> through the box.   CPU load usually well below 35% (and that's a NPE-225,
> not a NPE-300).
>
> 12.2(18)S10, CEF, IPv4+IPv6, 51 weeks uptime, lots of happy packets.
>
>> Or some good ol' voice?
>
> I haven't used a Cisco box for voice termination yet.
>
> OTOH our core network is carrying our own voice traffic (between Snom
> phones and an Asterisk PABX) via STM-1s connecting NPE-400s and NPE-G1s
> - but a STM-1 with imix traffic pattern won't saturate a NPE-400, so
> we haven't run into any router-induced issues with the VoIP stuff yet.
>
>> Just FYI, I'm not asking this in condescending manner...I'm
>> asking becuase you didn't offer this up as an example.
>
> Well - the original poster *did* *not* *ask* for such.
>
> It would be so helpful if people wouldn't just stray off from the
> *questions* people ask just to tell about their grandchildren...
>
>> Oh...could you point me to the CEF sucks info thread?  I must of missed 
>> that
>> one. :)
>
> Just figure out how to use the list archives.  There are enough postings
> where people recommend to turn off CEF, or where people state that they
> are not running CEF because this-or-that problem.  Or other people 
> claiming
> that "CEF" is an acronym for "customer enragement feature".
>
> Ceterum censeo: if you're doing something extraordinary to your NPE-300
> to reach 70% CPU load with 10 Mbit/s. of load - congratulations to you,
> this is an achievement.  But please don't offer this as meaningful advice
> to someone asking for "how will a NPE-300 behave under *normal*
> circumstances".
>
> 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