[c-nsp] Best practice - Core vs Access Router

Drew Weaver drew.weaver at thenap.com
Tue Feb 9 09:33:05 EST 2010

6500s are just an awful platform and have caveats out the wazoo.

Yes, the 3BXL will do full internet tables, but not as well as any router Cisco offers (GSR...)

Yes, the 6724 Line card can do 24 1Gbps connections, but not if you have bursty traffic (buffer overflows)

Yes, the Supervisor will respond to traceroutes, but in software... (rate limit TTL)

If you ping the 6500 while BGP scanner is running you will see 600ms responses...

Most of these things (except for the 6724 line card suckage) are 'fixed' in hardware only platforms (GSR... etc)

I probably sound bitter, but if one goes straight from what Cisco's documentation says they would think the 6500 is a great platform, but there should be a * next to everything in that entire white paper.


-----Original Message-----
From: cisco-nsp-bounces at puck.nether.net [mailto:cisco-nsp-bounces at puck.nether.net] On Behalf Of Andy B.
Sent: Tuesday, February 09, 2010 8:54 AM
To: Manu Chao
Cc: cisco-nsp at puck.nether.net
Subject: Re: [c-nsp] Best practice - Core vs Access Router

On Tue, Feb 9, 2010 at 2:51 PM, Manu Chao <linux.yahoo at gmail.com> wrote:
> For sure it may be possible to reduce/optimise the routing
> But in all case you will hit the platform limit ;(
> Full Internet Routing cost a lot

I have other cores that do 40 times more BGP and they work like charm,
with the exception that they do not have a few thousand servers
connected to them. Only customers with routers.
These routers are similar to this 6509, so nothing better or worse.

cisco-nsp mailing list  cisco-nsp at puck.nether.net
archive at http://puck.nether.net/pipermail/cisco-nsp/

More information about the cisco-nsp mailing list