On 8/31/10 3:20 PM, Adam Greene wrote: > Hi, > > I have a customer with a 7204VXR / NPE300 and 256MB DRAM and the > following cards/interfaces: > - C7200-IO-FE-MII/RJ45= > - PA-8T-V35= (only three serial interfaces in use) > - PA-FE-TX > - PA-FE-TX (spare) > - PA-1GE= > > It currently supports nine BGP sessions (all but one is iBGP) for a > total of only about 100 routes. > > It does about 50Mbps / 25Mbps throughput (~20mpps) on average to a > single upstream Internet provider which provides nothing more than a > default route. The CPU generally runs at about 45%, RAM at 10%.
20mpps? You mean 20kpps right? > The customer is planning to add a second 50Mbps link to another Internet > provider. At this point it's only being considered a backup link, but > it's possible they may decide to accept full routes in the future and > route in/out both links. > > Frankly I think that they could upgrade to an NPE400 and keep the RAM as > is and still be OK, as long as they don't get the BGP full routes. If > they get the full routes from both providers, what do you think ... > NPE-G1 and 1GB RAM? > > Thanks, > Adam 512M NPE-400 you be the minimum, but watch the points use. A full table, maybe 2 will a little small prefix filtering. Watch out for queue drops and other issues exceeding 100/50 Mbps, specially if running alot of CAR statements or trying to run QoS. (Don't even think of PBR or any real ACLs, keep to optimal (minimal) configs and minimal feature use.) A 512M or 1G NPE-G1 will handle about twice the traffic IMHO and would be a decent choice, but plan on scrapping the IO card and PA-1G, use the onboard GigE ports. Beyond that level start thinking ASR or better yet a small M series by vendor J. _______________________________________________ cisco-nsp mailing list [email protected] https://puck.nether.net/mailman/listinfo/cisco-nsp archive at http://puck.nether.net/pipermail/cisco-nsp/
