[c-nsp] Next step-up from 7206VXR

[Pete Lumbis]

There are two pieces: control plane processing power and TCAM.

Sup720 CPU can't really keep up with the average churn of the internet
anymore. RSP720's and Sup2T CPUs can still keep up.

Both RSP720-3CXL and Sup2T-XL can support 1 million routes*

*hardware implementation is different on these cards and how v4/v6 routes
are shared in hardware storage is not the same.


On Tue, Feb 19, 2013 at 11:39 PM, Jon Lewis <jlewis at lewis.org> wrote:

> The Sup720-3bxl (and Sup2T and RSP720) will run out of tcam before the
> "churn of [a couple of] full feeds" makes them non-viable.
>
> We're getting close to a repeat of 2008, where lots of 6500s (those still
> running Sup2s) were inching up against their maximum supported routes when
> dealing with full views.  Sometime in the next year or so, the default
> IPv4/IPv6 split on the best Sups you can get today are going run out of
> IPv4 FIB TCAM.  Some will tune (or already have tuned) the split to buy
> another year or so, others will do so only after some head scratching when
> their 6500s fall over.
>
> The question is, will cisco release a bigger FIB TCAM sup for the 6500, or
> will they allow this product line to end its useful life as a full view
> internet router in order to push people into ASRs or competitors' products?
>
>
>  On Tue, 19 Feb 2013, Pete Lumbis wrote:
>
>  Both Sup2t and RSP720 (to a lesser extent but still much better than
>> Sup720) can handle the churn of full feeds.
>>
>>
>> On Tue, Feb 19, 2013 at 5:10 PM, Tony Varriale <tvarriale at comcast.net
>> >wrote:
>>
>>  On 2/19/2013 2:57 PM, Jon Lewis wrote:
>>>
>>>  On Tue, 19 Feb 2013, Eric A Louie wrote:
>>>>
>>>>  I've run out of port capacity on my 7206VXR and need to go to "the next
>>>>
>>>>> router"
>>>>> or put in another 7206VXR side-by-side.
>>>>>
>>>>> Any recommendations on what to use if I were to replace my existing
>>>>> 7206VXR with
>>>>> another chassis?  (it's limited to 5 GB interfaces, and we need 7 or 8)
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>> You've got to say more about what the router is doing and what you need
>>>> from it.  If it's routing for 8 1gb ethernets and doing full BGP routes,
>>>> and nothing special, then a 6500 is an attractive option bang for your
>>>> buck-wise.  They're made for ethernet and comparitively cheap to keep
>>>> adding ports to.
>>>>
>>>>  Except when said 6500 sup CPU is asked to do BGP intensive stuff :)
>>>>
>>>
>>> tv
>>>
>>>
>>> ______________________________****_________________
>>> cisco-nsp mailing list  cisco-nsp at puck.nether.net
>>> https://puck.nether.net/****mailman/listinfo/cisco-nsp<https://puck.nether.net/**mailman/listinfo/cisco-nsp>
>>> <htt**ps://puck.nether.net/mailman/**listinfo/cisco-nsp<https://puck.nether.net/mailman/listinfo/cisco-nsp>
>>> >
>>> archive at http://puck.nether.net/****pipermail/cisco-nsp/<http://puck.nether.net/**pipermail/cisco-nsp/>
>>> <http://**puck.nether.net/pipermail/**cisco-nsp/<http://puck.nether.net/pipermail/cisco-nsp/>
>>> >
>>>
>>>  ______________________________**_________________
>> cisco-nsp mailing list  cisco-nsp at puck.nether.net
>> https://puck.nether.net/**mailman/listinfo/cisco-nsp<https://puck.nether.net/mailman/listinfo/cisco-nsp>
>> archive at http://puck.nether.net/**pipermail/cisco-nsp/<http://puck.nether.net/pipermail/cisco-nsp/>
>>
>>
> ------------------------------**------------------------------**----------
>  Jon Lewis, MCP :)           |  I route
>  Senior Network Engineer     |  therefore you are
>  Atlantic Net                |
> _________ http://www.lewis.org/~jlewis/**pgp<http://www.lewis.org/~jlewis/pgp>for PGP public key_________
>