On Tue, 2008-01-08 at 07:45 -0800, Mark Kent wrote: > So, I'm looking at the cisco web pages and I see the 7600 is pushed > big-time as a service provider edge device, and yet I see that the > sup32-3b has a 300Mhz processor, and so it is not much faster than an > NPE-300 (262Mhz). > > I stopped taking full routes on NPE-300 equipment a couple of years > ago, moving to an npe-g1. So, what's the scoop with the > 7600/sup32-3b? It seems like a step back to me, other than the 8 > built-in gigE ports.
The 7600 does hardware forwarding of most traffic (depends), and thus does not use the processor for that. It's the PFC/DFC that does the forwarding. That's an advantage. :-) > I'm looking at an application where the box would push a total of about > 1Gbs over two gigE upstreams. It would have two gigE internal > neighbors, each with full bgp routes... so four full tables. I'm > concerned about the issue of traceroutes looking bad as they pass > through the box (which confuses EndUsers), due to the cpu load from > the bgp scanner. On Tue, 2008-01-08 at 12:14 -0500, Jared Mauch wrote: > Simple answer: Sup32 is not viable for full bgp tables anymore. Enjoy > it as a l2 device that can't do 10GE! With 512MB memory, it can't take a full table? The world is moving fast I guess. :-) Anyway, you could adjust walker intervals etc. and maybe cope with the tardy processor, but it's probably not a good idea. Regards, Peter _______________________________________________ cisco-nsp mailing list [email protected] https://puck.nether.net/mailman/listinfo/cisco-nsp archive at http://puck.nether.net/pipermail/cisco-nsp/
