[c-nsp] 6500 vs. 7600 revisited again

[Phil Mayers]

Mark Tinka wrote:
> On Wednesday 09 April 2008, Gert Doering wrote:
> 
>> Indeed.  Worse, they are now building increasingly
>> different chassis types with different capabilities -
>> 6500-E with "lots of power", and 7600-S with "nice and
>> shiny high-availability EOBC" (if I understand the
>> differences right).
> 
> What I would really like is to run the RSP720-3CXL on our 
> 6500's. At the moment, if one wants to run -3CXL mode 

Agreed; the CPU on the sup720 is laughably puny. Hell, even the one on 
the RSP720 isn't that fast, but at least it's an improvement.

> across the entire chassis, 6500's will only support the 
> VS-S720-10G-3CXL (which, as Janos pointed out, isn't even 
> supported on the 7600). As much as the new supervisor is 
> touting VSS, we really don't need that today, but could use

I note with concern that the Cisco product page lists the VSS as a 
different "product" to the base 6500. Ordinarily such a minor thing 
would not concern me, but as Gert has pointed out repeatedly, Cisco have 
made people very nervous about the 6500/7600 roadmap...


> the extra horsepower/features available on the card.
> 
> Let us hope the upcoming switch fabric will be supported on 
> both platform types.

Ho ho. I doubt that very much.

> 
> Alternatively, if it's not at all too impossible, Cisco 
> could craft a daughter -3CXL card for the SUP720-3BXL so we 
> can get -3CXL functionality with a simple supervisor module 
> PFC upgrade.

I was under the impression the PFC is not an FRU.