On Fri, 2009-06-12 at 12:58 -0700, Jo Rhett wrote: > Now let's talk about reality: 1/10 inbound/outbound ratios, 5% of > received traffic is Internet cruft requiring (wasted) TCAM lookups, > etc and such forth than any provider peering router observes, and > you're down to a much lower ratio. Fail to install DFCs and you'll > find your 6509s falling over with just a few gigabits of traffic. > 30mpps versus 48mpps gives an illusion that DFCs only give you another > 50%, but that's not reality on the ground. Don't try and persuade me > otherwise, I've seen this repeatedly in real life environments.
I tend to agree with this (and your points generally btw), especially when looking carefully at the subject of this thread. I'd still say "it depends" though. Sometimes a non DFC enabled box would do the job fine. It's (mostly) not like the box dies doing nothing. :-) I would even suspect that many C6k/Sup720s are probably using very little of their capacity. It's targeted at the enterprise, and I've seen 3BXL boxes in 6 node networks with ~ 50 prefixes in OSPF and nothing else. I would therefore say that _sometimes_ someone from Cisco or a partner might upsell a little. The people that are genuinely worried about the performance would also know what to do about it and where to look for alternatives. > Now, let's stop talking about non-DFC cards and start talking about > equipment which can handle uRPF on every port, full Netflow analysis > of up to 8 ports at a time, every port layer 3, every port filtered, > colo facility core/peering. If this is the target then 6500/7600 isn't really the best tool IMHO. 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/
