Pete Templin wrote: > Step back and analyze: do you really need NPE-G1 (a device rated around > 1 million pps, so we'll figure 100kpps real-world) to handle ~6-8kpps? > I'm showing about 4kpps on 4xCT3. Consider NPE-225, and you'll see the > price drop significantly. Plus, you won't need Gig uplinks...but it may > impact your scalability calculations.
Certainly don't need a NPE-G1, however I was trying to save bandwidth points and slots in my head. I figure that a FE or two isn't going to handle the ~500mbit of traffic that is potentially generated from 12 DS-3s. > Redundant processors means your outage time shrinks from 360 seconds to > ~45 seconds, on the rare occasion there's a processor outage. However, > you gain outage time whenever a processor "fakes" an outage, and the > spare RSP takes over. Honestly, never had a 'fake' outage in my time of using RSPs. That said, my last NPE failure was a lot longer than 360s because it never came up after rebooting. > Using 6x7206 in the space of 1x7513 means 12xCT3 are impacted, not > 36xCT3, and your other 64xCT3 are undisturbed. That can be a good > thing. Given the simplicity of the code in a 7200 (no need for any dCEF > code, no need to accommodate switching vectors for non-dCEF cards, > etc.), you're getting a more stable platform in the 7206 than the 7513. > > Nutshell: I want 7206s (NPE-225, 2xOC3 uplinks, 4xPA-MC-2T3) for my > ongoing CT3 deployments. I agree - Splitting stuff up across multiple routers is always a "good thing". Right now my 7500s experiences have been happy enough, plus from a troubleshooting perspective I've got a bias towards that rather than 7200 since I'm more familiar with funky things they do and how to get around it. David _______________________________________________ cisco-nsp mailing list [email protected] https://puck.nether.net/mailman/listinfo/cisco-nsp archive at http://puck.nether.net/pipermail/cisco-nsp/
