[c-nsp] 6500, 7600 or ASR

["Rolf Hanßen"]

Hello,

just for my interest: what amount of routes are we discussing ?

show platform hardware capacity:
L3 Forwarding Resources
             FIB TCAM usage:                     Total        Used      
%Used
                  72 bits (IPv4, MPLS, EoM)     1048576      460874       
 44%
                 144 bits (IP mcast, IPv6)      524288       14178        
 3%
                 288 bits (IPv6 mcast)          262144           1        
 1%

Do you expect to have more than 1M IPv4 / 512k IPv6 routes or is there
some other limitation I do not see ?

Back to topic:
If shaping and not only rate-limiting is needed (was mentioned in the
initial mail), 6500/7600 is no option anyway afaik.

kind regards
Rolf

> On Thu, 29 Aug 2013, chip wrote:
>
>> Let's all also remember the TCAM limitations on the 7600/Sup2T platform.
>> With the BGP table growing like it is, you'll need to carve up IPv4/IPv6
>> TCAM allocation and could likely run out in the not-so-distant future.
>> IMHO, unless something amazing happens for the 7600/Supervisor platform,
>> this thing is dead as a DFZ BGP router and people should be looking
>> elsewhere moving forward.  Both ASR lines (1k/9k) offer much better
>> "router" capabilities and growth paths.  The 6500/7600 platform has had
>> a
>> helluva run, but I believe its time has passed.
>
> The TCAM limitation will kill the 6500/7600 platform for BGP router use
> _unless_ cisco comes out with a new PFC and DFCs that raises the limit.  I
> still wonder what they were thinking with the Sup2T and why it didn't get
> any more routing slots than the Sup720-3BXL.  This platform is the
> cheapest way to get lots of gigabit (or even 10 gigabit) ports and line
> rate performance in a BGP capable router...but sometime in the next couple
> of years, the current Sups and DFCs probably won't handle a full table.
> More TCAM and faster CPUs could keep the 6500 series viable for a long
> time.
>
> I haven't followed the thread closely enough to know if "netflow" was ever
> elaborated.  The 6500 does netflow.  Whether the netflow it does is
> sufficient for the OPs needs is the question.
>
> ----------------------------------------------------------------------
>   Jon Lewis, MCP :)           |  I route
>                               |  therefore you are
> _________ http://www.lewis.org/~jlewis/pgp for PGP public key_________
> _______________________________________________
> 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/
>