[c-nsp] 10G for 6506-E with Sup32-8Gb or replace with 4900M
We have 3 campus with on each campus a 6506-E/Sup720-10G as 'master router' and a 6506/E-Sup32-8gbit as backup router, in a HSRP config. In each router we also have GBIC boards to connect the different buildings. These Sup32 routers also act as L2 concentrator for part of each campus. Now we are thinking about connecting both routers to each other on each campus with a 10G connection. As the Sup32 don't have a 10G yet, we have multiple options to do so. We can add a 10G board to the chassis, replace the supervisor with a Sup720 or replace the whole router with a 4900M. If I take a look at listprices, I get 28000$ for Sup720, 2$ for 6704 (but these are Xenpacks), 37500$ for 6708 and 22000$ for 4900M (base + 10/100/1000 card, dual power). We have 65XX as routers because we had FWSM boards in them but these are not used anymore. Based on the price, it seems we best opt to replace the 6506-E/Sup32 with the 4900M option (there is also a difference in maintenance cost). With Twingig convertors this offers us a good combination of 10G and 1G SFP ports. For 7500$ we can add a second 8 port X2 board that gives us extra 10G/SFP-ports if needed. Has anyone had bad/good experience with using a 4900M as router, given the following environment : - Router acts as backup router, so in 99.xxx% of the time it only has to forward L2 traffic - Only static routes, no active routing protocol. - 40 vlans, 40 SVI's with ACLs on it - No IPv6 for the moment, but according to the specs, the 4900M should handle IPv6 in hardware just fine. - No Qos yet, but we are planning to implement that in 2011 I know we lose the netflow capability if the primary router fails, but we can live with that. All comments are welcome. Wim Holemans Network Services University of Antwerp Belgium ___ cisco-nsp mailing list cisco-nsp@puck.nether.net https://puck.nether.net/mailman/listinfo/cisco-nsp archive at http://puck.nether.net/pipermail/cisco-nsp/
Re: [c-nsp] 10G for 6506-E with Sup32-8Gb or replace with 4900M
Hi, On Thu, Dec 23, 2010 at 02:05:25PM +, Holemans Wim wrote: Now we are thinking about connecting both routers to each other on each campus with a 10G connection. As the Sup32 don't have a 10G yet, we have multiple options to do so. We can add a 10G board to the chassis, replace the supervisor with a Sup720 or replace the whole router with a 4900M. JFTR: you can *not* add a 10G board to the chassis. The Sup32 has no fabric, and the 10G boards are fabric-only (67xx). You could do Sup720-10G or Sup32-10G, though. Or Sup720 + 6704/6708. If you only need 2 or 4 10G ports, and can live with the slow CPU and limited routing table, Sup32-10G sounds like the best plan forward. gert -- USENET is *not* the non-clickable part of WWW! //www.muc.de/~gert/ Gert Doering - Munich, Germany g...@greenie.muc.de fax: +49-89-35655025g...@net.informatik.tu-muenchen.de pgpVxfxZ3pqdJ.pgp Description: PGP signature ___ cisco-nsp mailing list cisco-nsp@puck.nether.net https://puck.nether.net/mailman/listinfo/cisco-nsp archive at http://puck.nether.net/pipermail/cisco-nsp/
Re: [c-nsp] 10G for 6506-E with Sup32-8Gb or replace with 4900M
I don't think you can do the 1G distribution on the 4900M without converting the 10G interfaces back to dual 1G. I have heard from others on the list that this severely limits your queue sizes but. Ymmv. Beating the multi-vendor drum this is a perfect use for the juniper ex4200 series. I have been giving my cisco se a hard time because they don't have an all fiber stackable with dual power that can do 10G. The ex will give you 24 fiber ports with 2 10G per switch for about 10k list. I know this is A cisco list but it's what I'd use. I have a hunch that they do this by design to force us to buy chassis based switches. In your situation I'd check when the sup32 goes eos/eol. You may be dodging a bullet by upgrading to the 720. Sent from my iPhone On Dec 23, 2010, at 9:05 AM, Holemans Wim wim.holem...@ua.ac.be wrote: We have 3 campus with on each campus a 6506-E/Sup720-10G as 'master router' and a 6506/E-Sup32-8gbit as backup router, in a HSRP config. In each router we also have GBIC boards to connect the different buildings. These Sup32 routers also act as L2 concentrator for part of each campus. Now we are thinking about connecting both routers to each other on each campus with a 10G connection. As the Sup32 don't have a 10G yet, we have multiple options to do so. We can add a 10G board to the chassis, replace the supervisor with a Sup720 or replace the whole router with a 4900M. If I take a look at listprices, I get 28000$ for Sup720, 2$ for 6704 (but these are Xenpacks), 37500$ for 6708 and 22000$ for 4900M (base + 10/100/1000 card, dual power). We have 65XX as routers because we had FWSM boards in them but these are not used anymore. Based on the price, it seems we best opt to replace the 6506-E/Sup32 with the 4900M option (there is also a difference in maintenance cost). With Twingig convertors this offers us a good combination of 10G and 1G SFP ports. For 7500$ we can add a second 8 port X2 board that gives us extra 10G/SFP-ports if needed. Has anyone had bad/good experience with using a 4900M as router, given the following environment : - Router acts as backup router, so in 99.xxx% of the time it only has to forward L2 traffic - Only static routes, no active routing protocol. - 40 vlans, 40 SVI's with ACLs on it - No IPv6 for the moment, but according to the specs, the 4900M should handle IPv6 in hardware just fine. - No Qos yet, but we are planning to implement that in 2011 I know we lose the netflow capability if the primary router fails, but we can live with that. All comments are welcome. Wim Holemans Network Services University of Antwerp Belgium ___ cisco-nsp mailing list cisco-nsp@puck.nether.net https://puck.nether.net/mailman/listinfo/cisco-nsp archive at http://puck.nether.net/pipermail/cisco-nsp/ ___ cisco-nsp mailing list cisco-nsp@puck.nether.net https://puck.nether.net/mailman/listinfo/cisco-nsp archive at http://puck.nether.net/pipermail/cisco-nsp/
Re: [c-nsp] 10G for 6506-E with Sup32-8Gb or replace with 4900M
It is very interesting that a 2:1 8 port 10G X2 card is $37500 for C6509 and $7500 for 4900M (+ has the ability to use Twingig). So I would say if don't need the extension capacity of C6506-E go for something smaller like 4900M. Also if you will only need 2x10G in the future you also might explore the SP BU - ME 3800X-24FS seems like exactly what you need right now. -pavel On Thu, Dec 23, 2010 at 3:32 PM, Gert Doering g...@greenie.muc.de wrote: Hi, On Thu, Dec 23, 2010 at 02:05:25PM +, Holemans Wim wrote: Now we are thinking about connecting both routers to each other on each campus with a 10G connection. As the Sup32 don't have a 10G yet, we have multiple options to do so. We can add a 10G board to the chassis, replace the supervisor with a Sup720 or replace the whole router with a 4900M. JFTR: you can *not* add a 10G board to the chassis. The Sup32 has no fabric, and the 10G boards are fabric-only (67xx). You could do Sup720-10G or Sup32-10G, though. Or Sup720 + 6704/6708. If you only need 2 or 4 10G ports, and can live with the slow CPU and limited routing table, Sup32-10G sounds like the best plan forward. gert -- USENET is *not* the non-clickable part of WWW! //www.muc.de/~gert/ Gert Doering - Munich, Germany g...@greenie.muc.de fax: +49-89-35655025 g...@net.informatik.tu-muenchen.de ___ cisco-nsp mailing list cisco-...@puck.nether.net https://puck.nether.net/mailman/listinfo/cisco-nsp archive at http://puck.nether.net/pipermail/cisco-nsp/ ___ cisco-nsp mailing list cisco-nsp@puck.nether.net https://puck.nether.net/mailman/listinfo/cisco-nsp archive at http://puck.nether.net/pipermail/cisco-nsp/
[c-nsp] 10G for 6506-E with Sup32-8Gb or replace with 4900M
Message: 3 Date: Thu, 23 Dec 2010 14:05:25 + From: Holemans Wim wim.holem...@ua.ac.be To: cisco-nsp@puck.nether.net cisco-nsp@puck.nether.net Subject: [c-nsp] 10G for 6506-E with Sup32-8Gb or replace with 4900M Based on the price, it seems we best opt to replace the 6506- E/Sup32 with the 4900M option (there is also a difference in maintenance cost). With Twingig convertors this offers us a good combination of 10G and 1G SFP ports. For 7500$ we can add a second 8 port X2 board that gives us extra 10G/SFP-ports if needed. Note - you can't use twingig converters in the base 10G ports of a 4900M - you have to buy the 8-port X2 half-card if you want to use the twingig converters. (you say 10/100/1000 card so I am guessing you intended to use a copper gig half-card in the first slot.) I have a handful of 4900Ms, they work fine pushing fair amounts of traffic at multi-gig rate (they're in place handling the first-level uplinks from my TOR 4948-10Gs). I don't do anything terribly fancy with 'em, but they seem as solid as the rest of the 4900s. DOM works nicely with 12.2(54)SG, finally. ___ cisco-nsp mailing list cisco-nsp@puck.nether.net https://puck.nether.net/mailman/listinfo/cisco-nsp archive at http://puck.nether.net/pipermail/cisco-nsp/
