On Sat, 5 Jan 2013, Charles Sprickman wrote:
We're tentatively shopping around, and I'm looking for that sort of
information on the ASR lineup. The 1002 and 1002-X look very
interesting on paper, but I'm not finding much about what folks in a
small service provider role have to say about them. We're at the point
where everything is ethernet now, so our 7206 with an NPE-G2 is feeling
pretty silly. Some of the ASR stuff seems to be in the used channel
already, which is nice (I'd rather have two used than one new, FWIW).
For an ethernet-only operation, the 6500/sup720-3bxl delivers considerable
packet forwarding/$ (lots of parts in the used channel). Its biggest
weaknesses would likely be netflow (having to do sampled if you're doing
hundreds of mbit/s or more) and the question of what cisco chooses to do
hardware-wise with tcam on future supervisors. The 3bxl is limited to 1M
ipv4 routes or (N ipv4 + (1M-N)/2 ipv6) N<1000000 routes. Even the
Sup2T-XL hasn't increased this limitation. If they choose not to address
this in the next couple of years, the 6500 will become unsuitable for use
where full BGP routing is necessary. They might choose to do this to
force orgs using the 6500 as routers to buy ASRs (or Juniper gear)...or
maybe the next Sup will support a few million FIB TCAM slots.
L3 Forwarding Resources
FIB TCAM usage: Total Used %Used
72 bits (IPv4, MPLS, EoM) 622592 434995 70%
144 bits (IP mcast, IPv6) 212992 11744 6%
I may have to adjust the ipv4/ipv6 split [again] (which unfortunately
requires a reboot), to squeeze a little more IPv4 capacity out of it
assuming v6 growth continues slowly.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Jon Lewis, MCP :) | I route
Senior Network Engineer | therefore you are
Atlantic Net |
_________ http://www.lewis.org/~jlewis/pgp for PGP public key_________
_______________________________________________
cisco-nsp mailing list [email protected]
https://puck.nether.net/mailman/listinfo/cisco-nsp
archive at http://puck.nether.net/pipermail/cisco-nsp/
