[c-nsp] Cisco 650x sup2 / sup32 configuration - what makes sense?

Jeff Meyers Jeff.Meyers at gmx.net
Fri Dec 9 05:39:34 EST 2011

Am 08.12.2011 11:18, schrieb Gert Doering:


> The best choice?  Don't use 6148-GE-TX modules.  They are fundamentally
> broken (8 ports share one ASIC with a single-GE uplink, one port that's
> "full" will block out the other 7 ports, ...).  It's even worse if

I've heard that now multiple times, but a # sh int cap says:

Switch-1#sh int cap mod 5 | i ASIC
   Ports on ASIC:         1-24
   Ports on ASIC:         1-24

So does that mean, that even 24 ports share 1x Gigabit? As I said: a 
fully utilized port 14 had a negative side-effect on more or less all 
ports on the blade but certainly on port #4. My understanding is, that 
this should not be the case if the ports 1-8, 9-16 and so on build a group.

>> Does it make sense to replace the 6148-GE-TX with a 6748 or is the sup2
>> respectively the sup32 the actual bottleneck?
> 67xx won't work with the sup32 (thanks, cisco).  I'd go for 6516-GE-TX,
> which have a much saner architecture than the 6148-GE-TX *and* will
> work with non-fabric-enabled supervisors.

What about 6148A-GE-TX or 6548-GE-TX? Will one of those modules help me 
to solve this issue or at least make it less worse?


More information about the cisco-nsp mailing list