Larry Rosenman [ler@lerctr.org] wrote:
For the record, I've got a customer taking 2 full BGP tables with a 3640 with 128Meg of RAM.
Can anything less than a 7200 handle three (preferably four) fast ethernet interfaces? That was my sole reason for going that route as it seems to be the smallest Cisco that will provide four fast-E connections (according to Cisco docs that I may have misread).
(not sure of cost...)
Well, it's certainly cheaper than a 7206... Thanks, Mike -- Mike Johnson Network Engineer / iSun Networks, Inc. Morrisville, NC All opinions are mine, not those of my employer
You could always use a 2620 or 2621 with their internal 1 or 2 fast ethernet ports and then use an external VLAN savvy switch to get as many more as you need. Use one switch port for the 802.1q vlan trunk, and set each other switch port to be in a seperate vlan. Create subinterfaces on the router for each, and use the vlan number as the .<whatever> subinterface number for simplicity. Some reports say a 262x can actually hold 128 meg dram. If not, cisco has again proven they don't learn, or that engineered obsolescence is the arrogant thing to do. There is the 2650 or 2651 option that DOES support 128 meg, but is sadly overpriced with no expansion to speak of. If getting the 7206, realise that there is now a dual 10/100 option for the I/O controller card as well as a gig-e/10meg dual port I/O card option. It is less $ than the PA-GE card. The gig-e can do VLANS, too. DON'T get the PA card with dual 100 meg as it isn't designed for full speed. Also consider the 300 processor as obsolete now with the 400 at the same price. I wonder why the 400 is less $ than the NSE-1, too. ----- Original Message ----- From: "Mike Johnson" <mike.johnson@isunnetworks.com> To: "Larry Rosenman" <ler@lerctr.org> Cc: <nanog@merit.edu> Sent: Wednesday, November 01, 2000 5:20 PM Subject: Re: RADWare Linkproof? (or better ways to multihome)
Larry Rosenman [ler@lerctr.org] wrote:
For the record, I've got a customer taking 2 full BGP tables with a 3640 with 128Meg of RAM.
Can anything less than a 7200 handle three (preferably four) fast ethernet interfaces? That was my sole reason for going that route as it seems to be the smallest Cisco that will provide four fast-E connections (according to Cisco docs that I may have misread).
(not sure of cost...)
Well, it's certainly cheaper than a 7206...
Thanks, Mike -- Mike Johnson Network Engineer / iSun Networks, Inc. Morrisville, NC All opinions are mine, not those of my employer
Are we talking the support of FE interfaces, or support of FE throughputs ? The switch may indeed support FE ports, but performance of the router will vary with packet size, IOS featues etc. I would be very suspect of the 2621 supporting even 1x10baseT FD at wirespeed ... Based upon my experience (limited I conceed) the 72xx is the minimum router to support the potential throughput of multiple FE ports ... Regards Mike
-----Original Message----- From: owner-nanog@merit.edu [mailto:owner-nanog@merit.edu]On Behalf Of Barton F. Bruce Sent: Tuesday, October 31, 2000 10:33 PM To: Mike Johnson; Larry Rosenman Cc: nanog@merit.edu Subject: Re: RADWare Linkproof? (or better ways to multihome)
You could always use a 2620 or 2621 with their internal 1 or 2 fast ethernet ports and then use an external VLAN savvy switch to get as many more as you need.
Use one switch port for the 802.1q vlan trunk, and set each other switch port to be in a seperate vlan. Create subinterfaces on the router for each, and use the vlan number as the .<whatever> subinterface number for simplicity.
Some reports say a 262x can actually hold 128 meg dram. If not, cisco has again proven they don't learn, or that engineered obsolescence is the arrogant thing to do.
There is the 2650 or 2651 option that DOES support 128 meg, but is sadly overpriced with no expansion to speak of.
If getting the 7206, realise that there is now a dual 10/100 option for the I/O controller card as well as a gig-e/10meg dual port I/O card option. It is less $ than the PA-GE card. The gig-e can do VLANS, too. DON'T get the PA card with dual 100 meg as it isn't designed for full speed.
Also consider the 300 processor as obsolete now with the 400 at the same price. I wonder why the 400 is less $ than the NSE-1, too.
----- Original Message ----- From: "Mike Johnson" <mike.johnson@isunnetworks.com> To: "Larry Rosenman" <ler@lerctr.org> Cc: <nanog@merit.edu> Sent: Wednesday, November 01, 2000 5:20 PM Subject: Re: RADWare Linkproof? (or better ways to multihome)
Larry Rosenman [ler@lerctr.org] wrote:
For the record, I've got a customer taking 2 full BGP
tables with a
3640 with 128Meg of RAM.
Can anything less than a 7200 handle three (preferably four) fast ethernet interfaces? That was my sole reason for going that route as it seems to be the smallest Cisco that will provide four fast-E connections (according to Cisco docs that I may have misread).
(not sure of cost...)
Well, it's certainly cheaper than a 7206...
Thanks, Mike -- Mike Johnson Network Engineer / iSun Networks, Inc. Morrisville, NC All opinions are mine, not those of my employer
If you were gonna put down the $$ for a 7206, I would look hard at a little Juniper M5 with a 4-port ethernet card. 40M pps and 5 Gbps ought to be all the throughput you can handle for less than $40K. A 7206VXR's throughput is a fraction of that. Brantley At 07:26 PM 11/1/2000 -0500, Mike Rae wrote:
Are we talking the support of FE interfaces, or support of FE throughputs ?
The switch may indeed support FE ports, but performance of the router will vary with packet size, IOS featues etc. I would be very suspect of the 2621 supporting even 1x10baseT FD at wirespeed ...
Based upon my experience (limited I conceed) the 72xx is the minimum router to support the potential throughput of multiple FE ports ...
Regards Mike
-----Original Message----- From: owner-nanog@merit.edu [mailto:owner-nanog@merit.edu]On Behalf Of Barton F. Bruce Sent: Tuesday, October 31, 2000 10:33 PM To: Mike Johnson; Larry Rosenman Cc: nanog@merit.edu Subject: Re: RADWare Linkproof? (or better ways to multihome)
You could always use a 2620 or 2621 with their internal 1 or 2 fast ethernet ports and then use an external VLAN savvy switch to get as many more as you need.
Use one switch port for the 802.1q vlan trunk, and set each other switch port to be in a seperate vlan. Create subinterfaces on the router for each, and use the vlan number as the .<whatever> subinterface number for simplicity.
Some reports say a 262x can actually hold 128 meg dram. If not, cisco has again proven they don't learn, or that engineered obsolescence is the arrogant thing to do.
There is the 2650 or 2651 option that DOES support 128 meg, but is sadly overpriced with no expansion to speak of.
If getting the 7206, realise that there is now a dual 10/100 option for the I/O controller card as well as a gig-e/10meg dual port I/O card option. It is less $ than the PA-GE card. The gig-e can do VLANS, too. DON'T get the PA card with dual 100 meg as it isn't designed for full speed.
Also consider the 300 processor as obsolete now with the 400 at the same price. I wonder why the 400 is less $ than the NSE-1, too.
----- Original Message ----- From: "Mike Johnson" <mike.johnson@isunnetworks.com> To: "Larry Rosenman" <ler@lerctr.org> Cc: <nanog@merit.edu> Sent: Wednesday, November 01, 2000 5:20 PM Subject: Re: RADWare Linkproof? (or better ways to multihome)
Larry Rosenman [ler@lerctr.org] wrote:
For the record, I've got a customer taking 2 full BGP
tables with a
3640 with 128Meg of RAM.
Can anything less than a 7200 handle three (preferably four) fast ethernet interfaces? That was my sole reason for going that route as it seems to be the smallest Cisco that will provide four fast-E connections (according to Cisco docs that I may have misread).
(not sure of cost...)
Well, it's certainly cheaper than a 7206...
Thanks, Mike -- Mike Johnson Network Engineer / iSun Networks, Inc. Morrisville, NC All opinions are mine, not those of my employer
On Wed, 1 Nov 2000, Barton F. Bruce wrote:
You could always use a 2620 or 2621 with their internal 1 or 2 fast ethernet ports and then use an external VLAN savvy switch to get as many more as you need.
Um, you've got a 26xx series Cisco taking multiple full views? (The subject does say "or better ways to multihome".)
Use one switch port for the 802.1q vlan trunk, and set each other switch port to be in a seperate vlan. Create subinterfaces on the router for each, and use the vlan number as the .<whatever> subinterface number for simplicity.
This works fine until you run out of packet overhead on that trunk interface.
If getting the 7206, realise that there is now a dual 10/100 option for the I/O controller card as well as a gig-e/10meg dual port I/O card option. It is less $ than the PA-GE card. The gig-e can do VLANS, too. DON'T get the PA card with dual 100 meg as it isn't designed for full speed.
Also consider the 300 processor as obsolete now with the 400 at the same price. I wonder why the 400 is less $ than the NSE-1, too.
Also realize that you can build a PC router with multiple OC3 and GE ports, loads of memory and faster processor(s) for less than 1/2 the cost of the 7206 chassis naked. Ours has been more stable that the Cisco gear (72xx and 75xx) it is connected to. --- John Fraizer EnterZone, Inc
Um, you've got a 26xx series Cisco taking multiple full views? (The subject does say "or better ways to multihome".)
I certainly don't, but have techie home users, must-stay-up.com, and smaller ISPcustomers that used to be able to take full routes in 26xx routers but now filter to keep a modest set of routes to optimize some of the outgoing and then have default routes to handle the rest. Has anyone actually TRIED 128 meg in a 2621? Remember there have been undocumented capabilities in the past. A newer 4500 thatis actually built from a 4700 motherboard does take 64 meg (the earlier ones didn't). Cisco now says don't cross memory between 262x and 265x. Is this a true no-no, or simply cisco not wanting you to make a nice discovery.
When Cisco quote the capabilities of a router, they always, understandably, consider the maximum potential bandwidth of an interface. Therefore a 100bT FDX interface takes up 200Mbps of backplane bandwidth. This of course limits the capacity of even a 7200 VXR to about 4 interfaces max. If you never intend to run your 100bT at anything like the max bit rate, you will probably be OK loading up your router with more than the approved number of interfaces, but you do so at your own risk obviously. jm
Larry Rosenman [ler@lerctr.org] wrote:
For the record, I've got a customer taking 2 full BGP tables with a 3640 with 128Meg of RAM.
Can anything less than a 7200 handle three (preferably four) fast ethernet interfaces? That was my sole reason for going that route as it seems to be the smallest Cisco that will provide four fast-E connections (according to Cisco docs that I may have misread).
(not sure of cost...)
Well, it's certainly cheaper than a 7206...
Thanks, Mike -- Mike Johnson Network Engineer / iSun Networks, Inc. Morrisville, NC All opinions are mine, not those of my employer
At 05:20 PM 11/1/2000 -0500, Mike Johnson wrote:
Larry Rosenman [ler@lerctr.org] wrote:
For the record, I've got a customer taking 2 full BGP tables with a 3640 with 128Meg of RAM.
Can anything less than a 7200 handle three (preferably four) fast ethernet interfaces? That was my sole reason for going that route as it seems to be the smallest Cisco that will provide four fast-E connections (according to Cisco docs that I may have misread).
You could put 2 NM-2FE2W's in a 3620 and fill it up with 3rd party memory. Should be less than 10K...I guess another good option for you could be to go with a layer 3 ethernet switch that supports BGP, like Extreme or Foundry. Brantley
participants (6)
-
Barton F. Bruce -
Brantley Jones -
John Fraizer -
Jon Mansey -
Mike Johnson -
Mike Rae