Well, the C6880-X features a slightly modified version of the Sup2T as a new
base-board, which actually
has a larger FIB TCAM with 2M IPv4 entries (if the data from BRKARC-3468 is
correct).
So that might qualify as a new Sup, even if it's just for the semi-fixed
chassis as of now :)
I assume a
Hi,
On Fri, Aug 30, 2013 at 04:44:40AM +0200, Mark Tinka wrote:
On Thursday, August 29, 2013 07:41:44 PM Gert Doering wrote:
(OTOH, if they have started the licensing bullshit on
6500/7600s now, I think I go shopping elsewhere)
Are you willing to throw out EIGRP, Gert :-)?
I was
On 30/08/2013 08:40, Gert Doering wrote:
I was thinking about ASR9k, which have EIGRP, and a modular OS :-)
And an entirely new category of things to complain about! I can't wait to
see how you like the software upgrade process on XR.
Nick
___
On 30/08/2013 00:23, Andrew Miehs wrote:
You can also get a 1001 with 4 additional 1g interfaces - plus it still
has a spa module slot
you can, but they won't buy you any more forwarding capacity. The ASR1001
has a non-upgradeable ESP5. I.e. the 4 additional GE interfaces won't get
you
Agreed - question of whether you require the forwarding capacity, or just that
number of ethernet ports... (Of course you could use a switch to increase the
number of ports as an alternative ...)
Sent from a mobile device
On 30/08/2013, at 18:37, Nick Hilliard n...@foobar.org wrote:
On
On Fri, 30 Aug 2013, Nick Hilliard wrote:
On 30/08/2013 08:40, Gert Doering wrote:
I was thinking about ASR9k, which have EIGRP, and a modular OS :-)
And an entirely new category of things to complain about!
I can second that!
I'm trying to commission our 1st ASR9k as we speak...
I
Hello,
just for my interest: what amount of routes are we discussing ?
show platform hardware capacity:
L3 Forwarding Resources
FIB TCAM usage: TotalUsed
%Used
72 bits (IPv4, MPLS, EoM) 1048576 460874
44%
Hi,
On Fri, Aug 30, 2013 at 09:37:47AM +0100, Nick Hilliard wrote:
On 30/08/2013 08:40, Gert Doering wrote:
I was thinking about ASR9k, which have EIGRP, and a modular OS :-)
And an entirely new category of things to complain about! I can't wait to
see how you like the software upgrade
On Fri, 30 Aug 2013, Rolf Hanßen wrote:
Hello,
just for my interest: what amount of routes are we discussing ?
show platform hardware capacity:
L3 Forwarding Resources
FIB TCAM usage: TotalUsed
%Used
72 bits (IPv4, MPLS, EoM)
Hi,
this is from a Sup2T/PFC4XL with 67xx cards (CFC only mode).
Default values, no config related to the CAM size.
Similar system with Sup720-3BXL looks like:
L3 Forwarding Resources
Module FIB TCAM usage: TotalUsed
%Used
5 72
On Friday, August 30, 2013 09:40:32 AM Gert Doering wrote:
I was thinking about ASR9k, which have EIGRP, and a
modular OS :-)
Ah, I thought you were done with Cisco :-).
(But then, moving from EIGRP somewhere else would not be
hard, and maybe I'll do it anyway one day... it's really
just a
Hi Guys,
Have the following requirements:
·
Minimum of 1Gbps routing performance with traffic shaping, ACLs, etc
enabled
·
2 full BGP tables initially with option to expand to 4 or more
·
Fully redundant, dual power, dual supervisor, multiple line cards for
redundancy
On Aug 29, 2013, at 3:28 PM, CiscoNSP List wrote:
Netflow
If you go with 6500 or 7600, be sure to use Sup2T and DFC4 in order to get
usable NetFlow, uRPF, and ACLs.
---
Roland Dobbins rdobb...@arbor.net //
On Thu, Aug 29, 2013 at 06:58:17PM +1030, CiscoNSP List wrote:
Have the following requirements:
Fully redundant, dual power, dual supervisor, multiple line cards for
redundancy
How many ports of which types?
Best regards,
Daniel
--
CLUE-RIPE -- Jabber: d...@cluenet.de -- dr@IRCnet -- PGP:
On Thu, Aug 29, 2013 at 06:58:17PM +1030, CiscoNSP List wrote:
Have the following requirements:
Fully redundant, dual power, dual supervisor, multiple line cards for
redundancy
How many ports of which types?
Only a few gig-e ports.
Best regards,
Daniel
--
CLUE-RIPE --
On Thu, Aug 29, 2013 at 09:04:15PM +1030, CiscoNSP List wrote:
Fully redundant, dual power, dual supervisor, multiple line cards for
redundancy
How many ports of which types?
Only a few gig-e ports.
Technically I'd go ASR9006 (IOS XR), but ASR1006 is less overkill and
probably
On Thu, Aug 29, 2013 at 8:34 PM, CiscoNSP List cisconsp_l...@hotmail.comwrote:
On Thu, Aug 29, 2013 at 06:58:17PM +1030, CiscoNSP List wrote:
Have the following requirements:
Fully redundant, dual power, dual supervisor, multiple line cards for
redundancy
How many ports of which
On Thu, Aug 29, 2013 at 09:49:06PM +1000, Andrew Miehs wrote:
On Thu, Aug 29, 2013 at 8:34 PM, CiscoNSP List
cisconsp_l...@hotmail.comwrote:
On Thu, Aug 29, 2013 at 06:58:17PM +1030, CiscoNSP List wrote:
Have the following requirements:
Fully redundant, dual power, dual
On Thu, Aug 29, 2013 at 10:30 PM, Daniel Roesen d...@cluenet.de wrote:
ASR1001 has no redundancy except power.
Deploying a pair of ASR1001 might be an option, depending on the
integration scenario and would provide higher availability and
fault isolation than a fully redundant system.
On Thursday, August 29, 2013 03:07:42 PM Andrew Miehs wrote:
I'll take 2 routers before I take 2 supervisors any day.
Same here - the RP2 in the ASR1001 will scale well when you
run as many full feeds as you want.
I'd go with 2x units if all you need is a handful of Gig-E
ports and no
On 8/29/2013 9:12 AM, Mark Tinka wrote:
Same here - the RP2 in the ASR1001 will scale well when you
run as many full feeds as you want.
It's not an RP2...more of a RP2 lite :) Also note the memory
restriction on the 1001 compared to a RP2 system.
As a general thought, stay away from RP1
Let's all also remember the TCAM limitations on the 7600/Sup2T platform.
With the BGP table growing like it is, you'll need to carve up IPv4/IPv6
TCAM allocation and could likely run out in the not-so-distant future.
IMHO, unless something amazing happens for the 7600/Supervisor platform,
this
On 29/08/13 16:59, chip wrote:
Let's all also remember the TCAM limitations on the 7600/Sup2T platform.
With the BGP table growing like it is, you'll need to carve up IPv4/IPv6
TCAM allocation and could likely run out in the not-so-distant future.
IMHO, unless something amazing happens for
Hi,
On Thu, Aug 29, 2013 at 11:59:25AM -0400, chip wrote:
IMHO, unless something amazing happens for the 7600/Supervisor platform,
... something is brewing, as they just announced a new chassis with
even higher bandwidth... no new supervisor or linecard yet...
(OTOH, if they have started
Hi Tony,
My company is considering buying some ASR1002 instead of ASR1001 though I
have not understood the reasoning behind it yet (too good Cisco sales guy?).
Could you give me more details on why you would stay away from systems with
RP1 such as the 1002? That could give me some munition to
Its fits same 16Gb memory, if talking about ram :)
On 29.08.2013 19:38, Tony Varriale wrote:
Also note the memory restriction on the 1001 compared to a RP2 system.
___
cisco-nsp mailing list cisco-nsp@puck.nether.net
Its limited to 4Gb memory, even if you able add more, RP1 running i386
image not x86-64.
On 29.08.2013 20:05, Antoine Monnier wrote:
Could you give me more details on why you would stay away from systems with
RP1 such as the 1002?
___
cisco-nsp
2 x ASR9001 operating in a cluster might be an option. Each has 4 SFPP ports
which will do 1Gbps or 10Gbps.
--
Robert Blayzor
INOC, LLC
rblay...@inoc.net
http://www.inoc.net/~rblayzor/
___
cisco-nsp mailing list cisco-nsp@puck.nether.net
On Aug 29, 2013, at 12:05 PM, Antoine Monnier wrote:
Hi Tony,
My company is considering buying some ASR1002 instead of ASR1001 though I
have not understood the reasoning behind it yet (too good Cisco sales guy?).
Could you give me more details on why you would stay away from systems with
RP2's etc?
Cheers.
From: cisconsp_l...@hotmail.com
To: cisco-nsp@puck.nether.net
Date: Thu, 29 Aug 2013 18:58:17 +1030
Subject: [c-nsp] 6500, 7600 or ASR
Hi Guys,
Have the following requirements:
·
Minimum of 1Gbps routing performance with traffic shaping, ACLs, etc
enabled
On 29/08/2013 23:51, CiscoNSP List wrote:
We should be looking at either a pair of asr1001's (With 16G memory), or
a single ASR1006 with dual RP2's etc?
2xASR1001 should be fine if you're ok about the low port density. You will
be awestruck at the cost of an ASR1006 with dual RP2. Also, get
On Thu, 29 Aug 2013, chip wrote:
Let's all also remember the TCAM limitations on the 7600/Sup2T platform.
With the BGP table growing like it is, you'll need to carve up IPv4/IPv6
TCAM allocation and could likely run out in the not-so-distant future.
IMHO, unless something amazing happens for
You can also get a 1001 with 4 additional 1g interfaces - plus it still has a
spa module slot
Sent from a mobile device
On 30/08/2013, at 9:03, Nick Hilliard n...@foobar.org wrote:
On 29/08/2013 23:51, CiscoNSP List wrote:
We should be looking at either a pair of asr1001's (With 16G
On Thursday, August 29, 2013 07:41:44 PM Gert Doering wrote:
(OTOH, if they have started the licensing bullshit on
6500/7600s now, I think I go shopping elsewhere)
Are you willing to throw out EIGRP, Gert :-)?
Mark.
signature.asc
Description: This is a digitally signed message part.
On Thursday, August 29, 2013 05:38:54 PM Tony Varriale
wrote:
It's not an RP2...more of a RP2 lite :) Also note the
memory restriction on the 1001 compared to a RP2 system.
Yes - I was considering control plane mostly, assuming the
OP will likely go with the BGP default of best route only
35 matches
Mail list logo
