[c-nsp] Cisco equivalent of juniper hardware

[Jeff Fitzwater]

    If you do choose the 7600, make sure you get the 720-BXL, it 
supports double the flow table size and larger TCAM for fast switching.  
We use 720-3B with 3Full BGPs but had to increase TCAM allotment for IP 
V4 flows vs IP v6 and Multicast, to reduce route processor CPU load due 
to flows being software switched instead of in the PFC (hardware switched).


http://www.cisco.com/en/US/products/hw/modules/ps2797/products_data_sheet09186a0080159856.html

 Jeff Fitzwater
OIT Network Systems
Princeton University

Phil Bedard wrote:
> Best bang for the buck is going to be the 7600 w/SUP720 or RSP720.
>
> The XR12000 (GSR) models will work as well, but the Ethernet cost on  
> those is going to be high.  Not as high as on a M120, but higher than  
> the 7600.
>
> Phil
>
>
> On Jun 6, 2007, at 12:59 PM, Auquier Benoit wrote:
>
>   
>> Hi,
>>
>> I'm looking for info on what would be technically equivalent to one
>> redundant juniper m120 configuration in terms of cisco hardware.
>> Requirements are :
>> - redundant PSU
>> - redundant routing engine
>> - ability to take 4 full BGP views and about 25 peers
>> - 10 interfaces, gigabit ethernet type
>> - ability to scale to 10 GB ethernet in near future without too much
>> re-investment outside interface cards .
>>
>> Could somebody point me to the right range of models ?
>>
>>
>> thanks
>>
>> _______________________________________________
>> 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/
>>     
>
> Phil Bedard
> philxor at gmail.com
>
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> 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/
>