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

Pete Lumbis alumbis at gmail.com
Wed Feb 20 04:10:49 EST 2013

On Wed, Feb 20, 2013 at 7:25 AM, Jon Lewis <jlewis at lewis.org> wrote:

> On Wed, 20 Feb 2013, Pete Lumbis wrote:
>  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.
> I'm using Sup720s, and not seeing that.

A few others made the point I was trying to make. Yes it will work fine
today. Even under a full reconvergence event it will work, I guess it's a
question of "optimal". There are still /a lot/ of Sup720s positioned at the
Internet Edge and are doing just fine. You just need to be aware that a
large convergence event (like the loss of a peer) will put a lot of color
on your Cacti Graphs.

>  Both RSP720-3CXL and Sup2T-XL can support 1 million routes*
> The Sup720 can do 1 million routes too.  Can you point out where cisco
> says the implementation is any different between the Sup720, RSP720, and
> Sup2T that makes the latter capable of handling more v4/v6 routes than the
> former.  Everything I've seen says the FIB TCAM space has not been improved.

For Sup720 the number of routes is based on the DFC. I didn't realize that
the 3CXL DFC existed for Sup720, I thought it was RSP720 only, I was
mistaken. This makes the TCAM Space of Sup720 and RSP720 the same. Sup2T
also shares FIB space between v4 and v6 but the implementation is different
(although the result is the same). I'm splitting hairs.

> ------------------------------**------------------------------**----------
>  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_________

More information about the cisco-nsp mailing list