On Wed, Sep 12, 2012 at 9:44 AM, Pete Templin <[email protected]> wrote:
> On 9/11/12 9:33 PM, root net wrote: > > That's what I am starting to figure out. Been doing some research and >> it's truly a distributed platform. I've also been reading that we would >> want Engine 3 as you mention but I think Engine 2 would work too. What >> do you think? >> > > The Engine 2 cards Suck(tm). Horribly limited code, so you might be able > to use an ACL, or you might be able to use uRPF, or you might...it's a > guessing game, and enabling a conflicting feature may cause a brief outage > while microcode bundles are changed. Wow! Thanks. Seems like a huge headache would set in. > > > Does that previous employer have two full Internet tables or just one? >> Is it IPv4 only or both IPv4 and IPv6. >> > > Two tables...bzzzt. Two feeds? Yes. It's all one table. But yes, > plenty of routers taking multiple feeds (the additional feeds don't take as > much memory as the first), and they do have v6 as well. > > Yes, of course...I meant feeds not tables. Crazy me... > > You are right miss read. Only 124xx has 5xSFC. The 8/40 we are getting >> has 3xSFC and 1xCSC now. I will add another CSC period for redundancy. >> It doesn't have any router processors. My choices for Ethernet lines >> cards seem to be 8-Port FE w/ ECC (engine 1) w/256MB, 1-Port GE w/ECC >> (engine 1) w/256MB and 3-Port GE (engine 2) w/512MB. Unfortunately the >> 4-Port GE ISE (engine 3) not supported on the GSR 8/40. That would have >> been easy enough hands down with a 1GB of route memory on the LC. >> > > Avoid Engine 1 completely. It was hurried to market so they could have > OC48 or 4xOC12, but it's even worse than E2: no priority queueing is > possible in the card. See above on the 3xGE; it was worse than the other > E2 cards I used. > > I promise you the 4xGE does work in GSR8/40 aka 12008. I've shoved it in > and seen it come alive no problem. I think you have to bring it down to a > lower RAM amount in GRP-B, but it'll work. Previous employer had several. That would have been interesting to test. > > > If your cards are Engine 3, they'll serve you well up to the >> 2.5Gbps/slot limits. If your xRP has enough RAM for all of its >> tables and your linecards have enough RAM for the FIB copy, you'll >> be fine. I miss these boxes, but they do have a steep learning curve. >> >> This 8/40 would have no xRP. So, we would need to decide to go with the >> GRP-B and upgrade as bandwidth increases. >> > > I think you missed the underlying fact of the GSR architecture: it's all > about the linecards. A GRP-B could run a fully loaded 12816. Transit > traffic never touches the RP, so bandwidth is not controlled/limited by the > RP. Only receive traffic makes its way towards the RP, though some stuff > is handled on the card. If dCEF dies on a card, the card is out of service > until dCEF is restarted; there's no "punt to RP" option. (The RP can go in > any slot, so the RP could only move one slot's worth of traffic if it were > asked to move traffic; that wouldn't work.) > I was actually having an internal thought process of as bandwidth increases (more money) we could get a PRP for support and should have been more clear. But was also thinking that the GRP-B would be borderline anyway and the LC only being Engine 2 with 512MB max. Thanks for all the comments. > pt > > http://www.cisco.com/en/US/**products/hw/routers/ps167/**products_tech_** > note09186a00801365b3.shtml<http://www.cisco.com/en/US/products/hw/routers/ps167/products_tech_note09186a00801365b3.shtml> > http://www.cisco.com/en/US/**products/hw/routers/ps167/**products_tech_** > note09186a008015a057.shtml<http://www.cisco.com/en/US/products/hw/routers/ps167/products_tech_note09186a008015a057.shtml> > > > _______________________________________________ cisco-nsp mailing list [email protected] https://puck.nether.net/mailman/listinfo/cisco-nsp archive at http://puck.nether.net/pipermail/cisco-nsp/
