[c-nsp] c7604 "starter kit"

[David Granzer]

Hello,

On 9/4/08, Saku Ytti <saku+cisco-nsp at ytti.fi> wrote:
> On (2008-09-04 13:23 +0200), Philippe Strauss wrote:
>
>  Hey,
>
>  > chassis 7604?
>
>  This is fine it's 'S' chassis like 7606S and 7609S even though the 'S'
>  is not visible there and it's black and not white :). Technically it's
>  the same.
>
>
>  > 3bxl or 3cxl?
>  > sup720 or rsp720?
>
>
> sup720 comes 3c(xl) and rsp720 comes with 3b(xl).

RSP720 comes with 3C(XL) and SUP720 with 3B(XL).

 WS-SUP720-3BXL
 RSP720-3CXL-GE

SUP720 - Supervisor 720 is designed for 6500 series
RSP720 - Route Switch Processor 720 is designed for 7600 series

Regards,
David

>  Differences between C and
>  B are rather minor and mostly related to L2 (like more MACs). However
>  there are some rarely mentioned things fixed in 3C that affect eg. MPLS.
>  Big benefit of RSP720 is MSFC4, which means you have faster control-plane
>  which can take more memory. I would definitely go with RSP720.
>
>
>  > linecard: what are the SPA? distributed forwarding? we don't need it a priori.
>  > there is a 6 gbic port (2+4) with PXF, what is this beast? probably something
>  > to avoid.
>
>
> SPA's house intelligent ports, which means mainly HQoS and vlan local signifance
>  and of course non-ethernet interface.
>  If you don't need any feature SPA has, you really should go with LAN card,
>  due to cost reaons.
>
>
>  > I've heard once upon a time a 8 port GigE linecard was available and not anymore.
>  > will the 8 port fixed GigE (not 10/100 but only 1000) of the cat6500 line work
>  > in a c7600?
>
>
> If you buy LAN cards, I wouldn't look other than WS-X67.. and WS-X65.. as
>  they connected to the fabric.
>
>
>  > We don't need 20 ports and that's a bit expensive.
>  > All port must do layer3, of course.
>
>
> All LAN cards with 3B/3C will happily do not just L3 but also MPLS.
>
>
>  > Full BGP table, many times (3 full peer plus 100 local peerings w few prefixes).
>
>
> No problem (you need XL)
>
>
>   You might also look at ASR1k as next-gen PE to replace VXR. 7600 has
>  limitation in hardware, especially in terms of IPv6 (no IPv6 uRPF, lookup
>  key size has compromises in ACL usage and others). When you compare
>  7600 with SIP/SPA, ASR1k is even cheaper solution and much more flexible.
>   One thing to notice is that ASR1k does not currently have EoMPLS support
>  in any software, but other than that, all generally used features
>  are supported.
>   If I'd need non-ethernet interfaces, vlan local signifance or HQoS and
>  I wouldn't need EoMPLS, I'd definitely go with ASR1k rather than 7600.
>
>  --
>
>   ++ytti
>
> _______________________________________________
>  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/
>