Hello, On 9/4/08, Saku Ytti <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > On (2008-09-04 13:23 +0200), Philippe Strauss wrote: > > Hey, > > > chassis 7604? > > This is fine it's 'S' chassis like 7606S and 7609S even though the 'S' > is not visible there and it's black and not white :). Technically it's > the same. > > > > 3bxl or 3cxl? > > sup720 or rsp720? > > > sup720 comes 3c(xl) and rsp720 comes with 3b(xl).
RSP720 comes with 3C(XL) and SUP720 with 3B(XL). WS-SUP720-3BXL RSP720-3CXL-GE SUP720 - Supervisor 720 is designed for 6500 series RSP720 - Route Switch Processor 720 is designed for 7600 series Regards, David > Differences between C and > B are rather minor and mostly related to L2 (like more MACs). However > there are some rarely mentioned things fixed in 3C that affect eg. MPLS. > Big benefit of RSP720 is MSFC4, which means you have faster control-plane > which can take more memory. I would definitely go with RSP720. > > > > linecard: what are the SPA? distributed forwarding? we don't need it a > priori. > > there is a 6 gbic port (2+4) with PXF, what is this beast? probably > something > > to avoid. > > > SPA's house intelligent ports, which means mainly HQoS and vlan local > signifance > and of course non-ethernet interface. > If you don't need any feature SPA has, you really should go with LAN card, > due to cost reaons. > > > > I've heard once upon a time a 8 port GigE linecard was available and not > anymore. > > will the 8 port fixed GigE (not 10/100 but only 1000) of the cat6500 line > work > > in a c7600? > > > If you buy LAN cards, I wouldn't look other than WS-X67.. and WS-X65.. as > they connected to the fabric. > > > > We don't need 20 ports and that's a bit expensive. > > All port must do layer3, of course. > > > All LAN cards with 3B/3C will happily do not just L3 but also MPLS. > > > > Full BGP table, many times (3 full peer plus 100 local peerings w few > prefixes). > > > No problem (you need XL) > > > You might also look at ASR1k as next-gen PE to replace VXR. 7600 has > limitation in hardware, especially in terms of IPv6 (no IPv6 uRPF, lookup > key size has compromises in ACL usage and others). When you compare > 7600 with SIP/SPA, ASR1k is even cheaper solution and much more flexible. > One thing to notice is that ASR1k does not currently have EoMPLS support > in any software, but other than that, all generally used features > are supported. > If I'd need non-ethernet interfaces, vlan local signifance or HQoS and > I wouldn't need EoMPLS, I'd definitely go with ASR1k rather than 7600. > > -- > > ++ytti > > _______________________________________________ > cisco-nsp mailing list [email protected] > https://puck.nether.net/mailman/listinfo/cisco-nsp > archive at http://puck.nether.net/pipermail/cisco-nsp/ > _______________________________________________ cisco-nsp mailing list [email protected] https://puck.nether.net/mailman/listinfo/cisco-nsp archive at http://puck.nether.net/pipermail/cisco-nsp/
