[c-nsp] CRS-1 FP-40

[Mark Tinka]

On Sunday, May 05, 2013 04:08:55 PM Abdelfattah Ghattas 
wrote:

> We are using FP-40 instead of the MSC, and it is working
> fine with no bad experience at all, we are not affected
> by its limitations as we did not need the extra features
> found in the MSC, so i encourage you to go for it if it
> is sufficient for your needs.

I've ran both the FP-40 and FP-140. They just work, 
particularly in a BGP-free MPLS core.

The key differences between the FP and MSC is the forwarding 
capacity. The FP-40 is rated at 45.5Mpps while the MSC-40 is 
60Mpps, although both will do line rate.

When used as an edge router, the FP-40 will also handle 
significantly fewer entries related to typical edge features 
such as number of VRF's per line card, number l2vpn pw's per 
line card, e.t.c.

The FP-40 also has fewer QoS queues than the MSC-40.

If you ever heard of the ASR14000 that never did get off the 
ground, well, that is what became the FP-40. The FP 
forwarding processors were initially developed by Cisco for 
customers that wanted to use the CRS as a peering or border 
router, but felt the MSC was too big. The ASR14000 idea was 
born, but as with the current ASR9000 (personal opinion), I 
guess Cisco saw the potential for overlap in the core 
routing space, hence the FP-40.

One processing engine I've never quite used but have always 
been curious about is the LSP (Label Switch Processor):

http://www.cisco.com/en/US/prod/collateral/routers/ps5763/data_sheet_c78-659947.html

It is aimed at operators that have a strong need for MPLS-
based cores, where in all likelihood, pretty much any packet 
running through the router will be MPLS-based. My main issue 
with such a line card is how well it supports IPv6, since 
IPv6 control planes for LDP and RSVP are still not yet out 
the cave, and the last thing you need is IPv6 falling over 
because the LSP either didn't support it or supported a very 
scaled down version of it.

That aside, I exclusively purchase FP-40's or FP-140's for 
my CRS deployments. I wouldn't touch an MSC. Too much bang 
for too much buck.

Hope this helps.

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/20130505/7e88b8e5/attachment.sig>