7206 is one of the _BEST_ Cisco routers, if we compare all parameters
((including numbert of bugs and simplicity).
- Original Message -
From: Robert E. Seastrom [EMAIL PROTECTED]
To: Alexander Hagen [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Cc: [EMAIL PROTECTED]; 'Alexei Roudnev' [EMAIL PROTECTED]; 'Mikael
Steve; For me this is a gem of insight.
Thanks
Alexander Hagen
Etheric Networks Incorporated, A California Corporation
527 Sixth Street No 371261
Montara CA 94037
Main Line: (650)-728-3375
Direct Line: (650) 728-3086
Cell: (650) 740-0650 (Does not work at our office in Montara)
Home: (Emgcy or
What about a 7505 w/ RSP4/256 and 2 VIP 2-50/128s with 4 PA-FE-TXs.
For additional port density a 3550 ?
What is better about the 7206 VXR ?
Alexander Hagen
Etheric Networks Incorporated, A California Corporation
527 Sixth Street No 371261
Montara CA 94037
Main Line: (650)-728-3375
Direct
Alexander Hagen [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
What about a 7505 w/ RSP4/256 and 2 VIP 2-50/128s with 4 PA-FE-TXs.
For additional port density a 3550 ?
What is better about the 7206 VXR ?
Fewer software bugs, simpler platform, half the vertical space in the
rack, redundant power supplies,
Alexander Hagen
What about a 7505 w/ RSP4/256 and 2 VIP 2-50/128s with 4 PA-FE-TXs.
I would get a 7507 w/redundant RSPs and redundant PS.
For additional port density a 3550 ?
Even a 2650 would do
What is better about the 7206 VXR ?
Fewer software bugs,
Not in my experience.
simpler
On Mon, 26 Apr 2004, Michel Py wrote:
Alexander Hagen
What about a 7505 w/ RSP4/256 and 2 VIP 2-50/128s with 4 PA-FE-TXs.
I would get a 7507 w/redundant RSPs and redundant PS.
You'd get a 7507 (only if it were a choice between that or a 7505?), but
then at the end of your message, you
Just be sure you have the VIP's that can handle any features you
need or you plan to run with dCEF off and let
the RSP do the work. And that's true as long
as you are not running features on that platform
that require dCEF.
That's the most common deployment mistake I
see made with the 75xx
On Mon, 26 Apr 2004, Rodney Dunn wrote:
That's the most common deployment mistake I
see made with the 75xx nowadays. People want
to move to dCEF to get added feature capability
or either run a new feature that requires dCEF and they
don't consider the extra load on the VIP CPU's that
is
Reading this thread, it looks to me like everybody's discussing the one
true router for doing BGP, without regard to any other requirements that
may exist in this situation.
Being able to take a full BGP table in a Cisco is simply a matter of
having enough memory. We're using 1760s as the
In an effort to keep from getting too vendor specific
on nanog I'll respond to you offline.
My initial response to Alex was aimed at giving him
something else to consider from a gotcha perspective along
with his other requirements.
Rodney
On Mon, Apr 26, 2004 at 03:50:45PM -0400, [EMAIL
--- Michel Py [EMAIL PROTECTED]
wrote:
The part I missed earlier is that I think Alexander
needs to buy the
platform. As of today I can not recommend buying any
7500 as even the
7507 and the 7513 are going to EOL sooner or later.
If you can't afford
a 7603, then the 7206VXR with NPE400G
David Barak wrote:
the m7i is a lot of power for not so much money,
If you know of one for sale for 5K, please let me know.
Rodney Dunn wrote:
That's the most common deployment mistake I see made
with the 75xx nowadays. People want to move to dCEF to
get added feature capability or
I bought a Riverstone Rs-3000 for BGP with a single upstream provider.
Great Deal.
Now I am back to the Cisco Question.
I have two options within my budget:
1) Catalyst 6006 w/ CATALYST 6000 SUPERVISOR ENGINE 1-A, 2GE, PLUS MSFC
PFC
2) CATALYST WS-X6248-RJ45, 48-PORT 10/100 FAST ETHERNET
Alexander Hagen wrote:
I bought a Riverstone Rs-3000 for BGP with a single upstream provider.
Great Deal.
Yeah, it might be a Great Deal (tm), but you're in for some surprises.
I've seen an RS-8600 (with CM3 and 512MB on board) nearly melt under
13Mbps of Nachi, to the point that I had to set
On Sun, 25 Apr 2004, Alexander Hagen wrote:
1) Catalyst 6006 w/ CATALYST 6000 SUPERVISOR ENGINE 1-A, 2GE, PLUS MSFC
PFC
Yuck. Unless you have very few flows you do not want to use MSFC1/PFC1.
This platform would be good for a file server with few but highspeed
flows.
This system costs
Yes. I've been looking at it and a 7505 with a 3550 behind it seems the
way to go for our type of operation.
As a cost cutting alternative - has anyone played with the 2900 XL
series using sub interfaces to turn them into virtual router ports ? or
vlan groups ?
Is it better to just buy a 3550 ?
Alexander Hagen
As a cost cutting alternative - has anyone played with
the 2900 XL series using sub interfaces to turn them
into virtual router ports ?
routing on a stick. As long as you understand that the aggregate
bandwidth can't be more than the port you hook too, fine.
On a 7500, you
The MSFC1 is a useless thing, and it is (more or less) impossible to get a
full BGP route view.
S1A-MSFC2 is minimum.
On Sun, 25 Apr 2004, Alexander Hagen wrote:
I bought a Riverstone Rs-3000 for BGP with a single upstream provider.
Great Deal.
Now I am back to the Cisco Question.
I
Hmm; why do you want to keep BGP on a switch instead of installing separate
router? Do you have a very wide uplink (uplinks)?
// I do not object an idea.
Yes. I've been looking at it and a 7505 with a 3550 behind it seems the
way to go for our type of operation.
As a cost cutting
hmm; why do you keep questioning people how to run their own networks?
step 1. know the limits of your devices
step 2. know the limits and purpose of each routing protocols
step 3. test test test
step 4. does it work for you? if yes: do it, if no: don't
it may be entirely approprirate to have a
Well this has been quite a stimulating discussion!
It appears the sweet spot would be as follows:
7507 Dual A/C Power.~ 750
Dual RSP4 with 256 MEM .~900
VIP2-50 with 128 MB RAM.~400
Now this can all be obtained for about 2000.00 perhaps...
The problem is the Fast Ethernet Interfaces
On Sun, 8 Feb 2004, Alexander Hagen wrote:
Now why is the CX-FEIP-2TX so much cheaper than the PA-2FE-TX ?
I can't say why cisco charges so much for the PA-2FE, but the CX-FEIP-2TX
is cheap because it's ancient (EOL'd some time ago) and probably not
capable of running both ports at
On Sun, 8 Feb 2004, Alexander Hagen wrote:
The PA-2FE-TX is about 1600.00- better to get a second PA-FE-TX with
second VIP2-50
Now why is the CX-FEIP-2TX so much cheaper than the PA-2FE-TX ?
I believe because the CX-FEIP-2TX is a full length card.
The PA-2FE-TX also isn't able to handle
Tom (UnitedLayer) [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
On Sun, 8 Feb 2004, Alexander Hagen wrote:
The PA-2FE-TX is about 1600.00- better to get a second PA-FE-TX with
second VIP2-50
Now why is the CX-FEIP-2TX so much cheaper than the PA-2FE-TX ?
I believe because the CX-FEIP-2TX is a full
I have been looking for a sub 5K router on the used market to support
around 30-50 megs peak traffic.
I have found the 7507/7513 but these things appear to have been
manufactured in 1995 !
Then there is the 7206 and the 7206 VXR - I guess the 7206 itself is
just as old as the 7507 and 7513 and
On 7-feb-04, at 11:48, Alexander Hagen wrote:
I have been looking for a sub 5K router on the used market to support
around 30-50 megs peak traffic.
[...]
We are looking at a pure Ethernet environment - but with the desire to
support a lot of value added services - such as IPSEC, VoIP, traffic
Montara is between Pacifica and Half Moon Bay.
Everyone has a different perspective - but all valid. However I would
say if you are going to go Cisco - and you have no other BGP gear under
Smartnet - you might look at the 3725 maxed out. It is new and you will
get support and available for
27 matches
Mail list logo
