Personally,
The 6509 was never optimal for WAN usage it's a excellent ethernet
router, What we have
done is use a 7206 or similar router for WAN service and connected it to
the 65xx via ethernet
one this isolates your WAN circuits so in the event Zeus tosses a
thunderbolt your way you blow
up an inexpensive router (relatively) and the 65xx is protected due to
the only connection
being optical (assuming GE interfaces here).
Also the 72xx has many WAN specific features in IOS which are not in the
65xx's code train
or were not the last time I actively looked.
- Scott
Mark Tinka wrote:
On Friday 25 September 2009 02:10:06 am CJ wrote:
Finally, if I solved this issue, I'm wondering about the
relative wisdom of using the FlexWAN card. I want to put
a PA-2DS3 in it and also a PA-MC-T3. Is this an
enlightened practice?
We've always been against trying to turn an Ethernet box
into a TDM/SONET/SDH device, as it's never cheap considering
how much bandwidth you're losing per slot relative to the
investment in adding non-Ethernet support as well as the
kind of bandwidth you'd be getting out of it.
It's the same thing Juniper did with their MX-FPC carrier
cards, adding support for SONET/SDH PIC's in the MX-series
routers. I'd still find it cheaper to buy a smaller box that
talks Ethernet and non-Ethernet fairly equally from an
overall cost/benefit-perspective.
But that's just us :-)... I'm sure a number of networks in
the wild find this feature quite useful, which is why the
vendors continue to find ways to provide support for it.
Cheers,
Mark.
_______________________________________________
cisco-nsp mailing list [email protected]
https://puck.nether.net/mailman/listinfo/cisco-nsp
archive at http://puck.nether.net/pipermail/cisco-nsp/
