[c-nsp] WCCPv2 Cisco 7600 + mask assignment problems

[Mark Pace Balzan]

Dean,


That I know of (but don't have real world production figures in hand)
the max performance will be when wccp negotation between router (6500 in
this case) and cache/s  results in L2 forwarding (or MAC rewrite) for
the redirection and packet return - ie from router to cache, and
vice-versa for packets returned by cache to router, _AND_ MASK for
assignment.  You can find this status from a 'sh ip wccp web-cache
detail'  Anything else (ie GRE redirection and/or HASH assignment) will
result in software forwarding on the MSFC and therefore lower
performance.  

Do you recall what wccp combination you had. Also what was the caching
vendor ?  Not all vendors suppport all wccp combinations.

I don't exactly know how each of the wccp combination affects TCAM
resource consumption on the Sup2 and other Cat6k supervisors. Im not
exactly the expert here.....so Lincoln and Tim may possibly fill in on
the exact figures, although there have been a number of posts on the
subject.


Cheers


Mark


 
> 
> ------------------------------
> 
> Date: Mon, 11 Sep 2006 19:12:00 +0100
> From: "Dean Smith" <dean at eatworms.org.uk>
> Subject: Re: [c-nsp] WCCPv2 Cisco 7600 + mask assignment problems
> To: <cisco-nsp at puck.nether.net>
> Message-ID: <00cb01c6d5cd$c7798640$01011bac at thor>
> Content-Type: text/plain;	charset="US-ASCII"
> 
> What's the best real world performance seen on a 7600/6500 
> with WCCP ? We
> moved away from 6500+Sup2+WCCP when we hit TCAM issues.
> 
> We've maxed out a 7200-G1 with about 500 Mb/s of traffic delivered to
> clients - That's a 3 legged config. Clients / Caches / Internet.
> 
> We're currently looking at using the ACE to deliver 2.5Gb/s+ of cached
> traffic.
> 
> We'd be using other ACE features aswell so its no purely for the
> redirect...but WCCP might save us a bigger throughput licence 
> on the ACE ;-)
> 
> Dean
>