[c-nsp] MX960 vs Cisco 7600

[Rubens Kuhl Jr.]

Mark,

Even with no full-routing capability, one can still do L3 or L2 VPN so
the customer can reach a central Internet router with half million/one
million routes if it`s a BGP customer, or follow default if it's a
single-homed customer. That works if such a BGP customer are in the
few percent exception, not on 90%+ rule... which is the case for our
market, but might not be the case for the original poster. Good point.




Rubens


On Tue, Sep 16, 2008 at 10:33 PM, Mark Tinka <mtinka at globaltransit.net> wrote:
> On Wednesday 17 September 2008 09:24:13 Rubens Kuhl Jr.
> wrote:
>
>> Cisco 7600 + ES20 are way too expensive on a price/port
>> perspective. Consider distributing smaller Cisco ME6524
>> boxes (which is not as cheap as it used to be, but it is
>> still lot less than 7600)...
>
> In our consideration for a "small" box capable of handling a
> large number of EoMPLS VC's, the ME6524 came up - but
> sadly, we can only think of it in that function, and not a
> combined L2VPN + IP termination device.
>
> This is because it can only support 256,000 v4 routing
> entries (PFC-3C).
>
> Would advise the OP to look at this if he's thinking of
> carrying full routes on it. If 0/0 is good enough, then no
> worries.
>
> Mark.
>