[c-nsp] 7600 Owners, failure stats wanted

[Mark Tinka]

On Friday, January 20, 2012 08:19:19 PM James Bensley wrote:

> Are they more likely to fail the other line cards? It
> doesn't seem very common practice to have to of every
> card in the chassis and provide customers with a port on
> two switching modules for example, so why dual RSPs? Are
> they *that* much more likely to fail?

We have 6500's running SUP720's on them. We use these for 
pure core switching in our large PoP's.

Each core switch is running a single SUP720. It's been like 
this for nearly 5 years now. We didn't think having dual 
RP's in the core switches would be worthwhile when we have 
two core switches in the first place, and since all they're 
doing is Ethernet switching - no routing.

That said, all routers that support dual control planes get 
them outfitted by default.

Our customers, these days, connect to us in the Access, as 
we're extending MPLS all the way into there, using ME3600X's 
at this time. These don't provide box-level control plane 
redundancy, so customers that need some assurance have to 
buy a 2nd link to another box in another ring.

Before the ME3600X's, high capacity customers that needed 
LACP would be thrown into large boxes like the MX-series. 
This was mainly because LACP or the need for 10Gbps limits 
your options re: what boxes you can use for edge 
termination, while staying relatively cost-effective. In 
these cases, customer member links are terminated on 
different line cards in the same chassis (until we deploy 
MC-LAG, of course).

Hope this helps.

Cheers,

Mark.
-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: signature.asc
Type: application/pgp-signature
Size: 836 bytes
Desc: This is a digitally signed message part.
URL: <https://puck.nether.net/pipermail/cisco-nsp/attachments/20120122/458b2cd6/attachment.sig>