[c-nsp] SIP-400 GigE vs SUP720-10G GigE

[Phil Bedard]

If you don't need locally significant VLANs for things like EoMPLS  
termination or have a need to do real traffic shaping, then
I wouldn't spend the money.

Phil



On Aug 22, 2007, at 1:16 PM, Tim Durack wrote:

> Trying to figure out whether I really need a SIP-400 for WAN facing
> ethernet links. Can I get away with the GigE uplinks on the new
> SUP720-10G? Docs suggest it supports SRR. Not sure if this will work
> if the GigE link is actually sub-rate (which is what I will be
> facing.)
>
> I'm not really convinced that deep buffers/shaping is the only way to
> go. If I just police, host tcp stacks should do their thing anyway,
> which pushes the buffering back towards the edge.
>
> Real world experience would be appreciated.
>
> Tim:>
> _______________________________________________
> 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/