[c-nsp] Cisco7609 as P layer

[Kim Onnel]

Its for a simple fact, it was not designed to do so and you might get
different performance and the roadmap inside the BU would be different and
the support from TAC as well.

Plus it would be unfair to compare price and performance of 7600 to an M320
and Juniper would never put an M7i or M10 as P, so its all about Positioning
not just 'pure technical' judgement.

My 0.2$

On Feb 12, 2008 1:23 PM, Peter Rathlev <peter at rathlev.dk> wrote:

> On Tue, 2008-02-12 at 12:38 +0200, Mauritz lewies wrote:
> > Has anyone used the 7609's (SUP720) as P layer devices in their MPLS
> >  networks?
>
> We use some 7604/Sup720 with 6700 LAN cards in a Metro Ethernet setup,
> no problems.
>
> > Cisco seems to keep rejecting this idea, but can't give me valid
> >  answers why.
>
> They just say "No!" or what? Is it because they won't support a P
> configuration?
>
> > The problem is that buying a GSR or CRS just doesn't make sense if the
> >  core will always be Ethernet and currently our core will take at least
> >  5 years to get to close to 10Gbps…
>
> Well, the 7600 can do 10G Ethernet fine. And if you'd need anything
> other than Ethernet, the SIP-cards are there for you.
>
> If you don't need anything advanced I can't see why the 7600 isn't a
> good idea. I'm not sure, but AFAIK it can do QoS queuing and scheduling
> on MPLS EXP bits, and it supports MPLS TE, so from my point of view it'd
> be a "perfect" P-box. Just my €.02. :-)
>
> Regards,
> Peter
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> 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/
>