On Jan 5, 2013, at 3:38 PM, Robert Hass <[email protected]> wrote: > On Sat, Jan 5, 2013 at 2:17 PM, Jon Lewis <[email protected]> wrote: >> 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 > > You can add weaknesses in QoS area. No HQoS on LAN cards.
6500 is LAN/DC services switch, there's no need for HQoS in that scenario usually. MX80 is a router and doesn't offer HQoS, which is a worse problem. With Sup2T in 6500 you can pack a pretty good QoS capabilities, it lifts the uRPF restrictions of previous generations, and adds Flexible NetFlow along with good scalability for ACLs and NetFlow cache to the portfolio of tools you can use. It also offers truly "routed" approach to dealing with VLANs, as you have BDs and LFIs to flexibly map/remap VLANs, and terminate L3 where do you want. For scenarios where ASR1k doesn't scale for price/performance reasons, use ASR9001. -- "There's no sense in being precise when | Łukasz Bromirski you don't know what you're talking | jid:[email protected] about." John von Neumann | http://lukasz.bromirski.net _______________________________________________ cisco-nsp mailing list [email protected] https://puck.nether.net/mailman/listinfo/cisco-nsp archive at http://puck.nether.net/pipermail/cisco-nsp/
