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

[Tim Durack]

Don't need locally significant VLANs, might be doing EoMPLS for Data
Center extension (perhaps), but I can always loopback ports for
local-switching (LAN ports are cheap.)

The question I'm still stuck with: what does shaping give me under
congestion condtions? Following some of the threads on congestion, I'm
getting the feeling that shaping might change latency, but not much
else. In which case, why spend the money?

Tim:>

On 8/22/07, Phil Bedard <philxor at gmail.com> wrote:
> 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/
>
>
>
>
>