RE: GSR, 7600, Juniper M?, oh my!
Dan Armstrong wrote: GSRs are useless if you are doing any kind of aggregation. Their traffic shaping abilities are embarrassing.
Neil J. McRae Historically yes, but no longer. The latest line of GSR cards now give them much greater capability in this area even though it was never designed as an access box.
There still is the issue of cost though. GSR line cards are not cheap.
7500 is the classic aggregator. They do the job quite well, actually. Based on cost right now, I would take 10 7500s over 1 7600 anyday.
If you are just aggregating E1/T1 then I'd agree, but the minute you need DS-3/E3/STM-1/ATM/100BaseT/ Gige aggregation then the 7600 is a far better choice cost wise
I would put 10mbps Ethernet and possibly DS3 in the same pool as E1/T1 though; this still remains in the realm of things a 7500 does fine. I'm not trying to defend the 7500 platform, it's obsolete all right. However, free is music to my ears. Michel.
On Wed, 7 Jan 2004, Michel Py wrote:
not trying to defend the 7500 platform, it's obsolete all right. However, free is music to my ears.
What about longer term maintenance issues? Is the 7500 not scheduled for EOL from Cisco 'soon' ? So, purchasing 7500 bits that might be dropped by 'normal' Cisco support in 1 year versus purchasing some other hardware that will be in support longer might pay out in the longer term? Of course, free is nice :) Free and no support is a problem for some folks... -Chris
not trying to defend the 7500 platform, it's obsolete all right. However, free is music to my ears.
What about longer term maintenance issues? Is the 7500 not scheduled for EOL from Cisco 'soon' ? So, purchasing 7500 bits that might be dropped by 'normal' Cisco support in 1 year versus purchasing some other hardware that will be in support longer might pay out in the longer term?
They recently refreshed the platform with RSP16, VIP8, and MX. It's still a viable platform for many medium size providers. I personally wouldn't use it for anything passing more than a couple hundred megs (at absolute most), but we have plenty of nodes like that. Actually, we've been seeing a trend where we are replacing 4700's with 7505/7's. -- Alex Rubenstein, AR97, K2AHR, alex@nac.net, latency, Al Reuben -- -- Net Access Corporation, 800-NET-ME-36, http://www.nac.net --
On Wed, 7 Jan 2004, Alex Rubenstein wrote:
They recently refreshed the platform with RSP16, VIP8, and MX. It's still a viable platform for many medium size providers.
As an exercise see if you can determine when this 7513: http://noc.ilan.net.il/stats/ILAN-CPU/new-gp-cpu.html swapped from an RSP8 to an RSP16 in the past 2 months.
I personally wouldn't use it for anything passing more than a couple hundred megs (at absolute most), but we have plenty of nodes like that. Actually, we've been seeing a trend where we are replacing 4700's with 7505/7's.
Moves about 400Mb/sec. -Hank
What about longer term maintenance issues? Is the 7500 not scheduled for EOL from Cisco 'soon' ? So, purchasing 7500 bits that might be dropped by 'normal' Cisco support in 1 year versus purchasing some other hardware that will be in support longer might pay out in the longer term?
Write an email-responder at local-support@example.com which replies with "Please upgrade to latest IOS first". Version 2.0 could give you ticket numbers and optionally request you to fill templates full of irrelevant information. Hardware is probably cheaper on eBay than the maintenance fees anyway. Pete
participants (5)
-
Alex Rubenstein -
Christopher L. Morrow -
Hank Nussbacher -
Michel Py -
Petri Helenius