[c-nsp] 10G options for 7600s

[Peter Salanki]

-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
Hash: SHA1

Just as Mikael said, the WS-X6704  and X6708 are LAN cards. The WS- 
X6704 has 12.8ms/port buffer if I do my math right (anyone please  
correct me if I don't), and the WS-X6708 has a 160ms/port buffer.  
This alone could be a reason to go with the X6708. The LAN cards  
doesn't support advanced QoS features such as HQoS, MQC Shaping,  
CBWFQ and so on. This is probably nothing you want to do in the core  
anyway. They have a couple of output queues and one strict priority  
queue, so doing simple VoIP prioritization and IPTV quality assurance  
is possible.

The WS-X6708-10G will be supported from 12.2(33)SRC.

If you are using VPLS, LAN cards on VPLS terminating boxes is a no- 
go. If you want local switching on EoMPLS (doing xconnect on a vlan  
interface), LAN cards against the core is also a no-go.

I know of many successful triple-play deployments with LAN cards in  
the core, you just have to know their limitations and build your  
network according to that.

Datasheet: http://www.cisco.com/en/US/products/hw/switches/ps708/ 
products_data_sheet09186a00801dce34.html

Sincerely

Peter Salanki
CTO
Bahnhof AB (AS8473)
www.bahnhof.se
Office: +46855577132
Cell: +46709174932


24 jun 2007 kl. 07.33 skrev Justin Shore:

> Greetings,
>
> I'm in search or recommendations for 10G linecard options for our  
> 7600s
> (current chassis have Sup720-3BXL but all new chassis have 3CXLs  
> and old
> one will be eventually replaced).  These ports will be used for  
> backbone
> links between other 7600 chassis in a MPLS cloud supporting a
> triple-play offering that will ultimately include HD video, VoD, VoIP,
> and high-speed data over FTTx.  These ports would not be
> customer-facing.  I'm looking at the new S chassis to complement our
> existing 7613s.
>
> I'm aware of the 10G SPA option but my understanding is that I can  
> only
> get wire speed out of 2 10G SPA ports on a SIP-600 because it only  
> has a
> single 20G backplane connection.  The ES20 would be nice if only it  
> was
> more dense.  $80k for 2 ports before optics is not terribly feasible.
> The $40k Advanced IP license for the ES20 is also both surprising and
> painful.  The ES40 would be an option if it comes in at the price  
> of the
> ES20 (or less) but my understanding is that it is more than a year  
> out.
>   The only option I see is the 6704 (6708 would be alright until we
> actually near the 40G backplane limit).  The Dynamic Config Tool also
> claims that none of the 6708 models are compatible with SRB but the  
> 6704
> is supported.  Is this another side-effect of the BU split?
>
> I'm looking at a PPT of the differences between the ES20, SIP-600, and
> 67xx linecards.  It points to differences in queues (1/2RX, 4/8 TX);
> shaping, HQoS, LLQ (use strict priority), VPLS uplink, VPLS with MPLS
> edge, and local VLAN significance are all not supported.  It also  
> points
> out a difference in the scheduler for the ports.  Nothing in this list
> jumps out at me as something I'll need for this particular  
> deployment of
> P routers.  The price difference is very significant as well.
>
> So, that said, can anyone think of any reasons why we shouldn't go  
> with
> the 6704/8 over the ES20, at least until the ES40 comes out?  What  
> else
> am I missing?
>
> Thanks
>   Justin
>
> _______________________________________________
> 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/

-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
Version: GnuPG v1.4.2.2 (Darwin)

iD8DBQFGflmqiQKhdiFGiogRAgXEAJ44xEA0B9ahaAd2Rx5eaGFn58TV4wCgk8sM
7J/KQCv+QaZop3ScFOYeaF8=
=8LDf
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----