Re: NAP/ISP Saturation WAS: Re: Exchanges that matter...
The fact remains that a ping packet stream a Linux 386SX would barely notice maxes out a 7010 (far more powerful CPU)
Bzzzt. That's a 30Mhz 68040 you're talking about. You're 386SX is on par if not ahead. And you might recall that it's handled at process level, whereas Linux does it at kernel level (or at least other Unixen do).
Considering the general trend in other markets towards cheaper, faster CPU's, I hope Cisco is working on router rev's with far more CPU and memory capacity at marginal price increase. I don't know how deeply the proprietary hardware is embedded in IOS. Of course, there may not be enough competitive pressure on Cisco to rev up their product line so quickly. While I'm at stating the obvious in armchair router design, how about the next 2500 series with a modest 100 MHz CPU and 32MB and so on for the 4xxx and 7xxx series? Sanjay.
Considering the general trend in other markets towards cheaper, faster CPU's, I hope Cisco is working on router rev's with far more CPU and memory capacity at marginal price increase. See the 7500. Tony
On Thu, 19 Dec 1996, Tony Li wrote:
Considering the general trend in other markets towards cheaper, faster CPU's, I hope Cisco is working on router rev's with far more CPU and memory capacity at marginal price increase.
See the 7500.
Hope that was a joke, the 7500 was not that big of a jump. Nathan Stratton CEO, NetRail, Inc. Tracking the future today! --------------------------------------------------------------------------- Phone (703)524-4800 NetRail, Inc. Fax (703)534-5033 2007 N. 15 St. Suite 5 Email sales@netrail.net Arlington, Va. 22201 WWW http://www.netrail.net/ --------------------------------------------------------------------------- "Therefore do not worry about tomorrow, for tomorrow will worry about itself. Each day has enough trouble of its own." Matthew 6:34
For CPUs and memory it most certainly is... What 7500s are you using? "The RSP kicks ass" - Alec Peterson, who's standing behind me... Avi
On Thu, 19 Dec 1996, Tony Li wrote:
Considering the general trend in other markets towards cheaper, faster CPU's, I hope Cisco is working on router rev's with far more CPU and memory capacity at marginal price increase.
See the 7500.
Hope that was a joke, the 7500 was not that big of a jump.
Nathan Stratton CEO, NetRail, Inc. Tracking the future today!
On Fri, 20 Dec 1996, Avi Freedman wrote:
For CPUs and memory it most certainly is...
What 7500s are you using?
Using 7513s at my smaller cities, and Netstar 1600 and Cascade 9000s at my 9 major cities.
"The RSP kicks ass" - Alec Peterson, who's standing behind me...
Avi
On Thu, 19 Dec 1996, Tony Li wrote:
Considering the general trend in other markets towards cheaper, faster CPU's, I hope Cisco is working on router rev's with far more CPU and memory capacity at marginal price increase.
See the 7500.
Hope that was a joke, the 7500 was not that big of a jump.
Nathan Stratton CEO, NetRail, Inc. Tracking the future today!
Nathan Stratton CEO, NetRail, Inc. Tracking the future today! --------------------------------------------------------------------------- Phone (703)524-4800 NetRail, Inc. Fax (703)534-5033 2007 N. 15 St. Suite 5 Email sales@netrail.net Arlington, Va. 22201 WWW http://www.netrail.net/ --------------------------------------------------------------------------- "Therefore do not worry about tomorrow, for tomorrow will worry about itself. Each day has enough trouble of its own." Matthew 6:34
On Fri, 20 Dec 1996, Avi Freedman wrote:
For CPUs and memory it most certainly is...
What 7500s are you using?
Using 7513s at my smaller cities, and Netstar 1600 and Cascade 9000s at my 9 major cities.
And you don't find the 7500 a big jump over the 7000? What are you trying to do, IP tunnel your data through another backbone? Avi
On Fri, 20 Dec 1996, Avi Freedman wrote:
On Fri, 20 Dec 1996, Avi Freedman wrote:
For CPUs and memory it most certainly is...
What 7500s are you using?
Using 7513s at my smaller cities, and Netstar 1600 and Cascade 9000s at my 9 major cities.
And you don't find the 7500 a big jump over the 7000? What are you trying to do, IP tunnel your data through another backbone?
Ok, yes they added some memory and it is faster, but they needed to put a MUCH bigger CPU in that box. It was a jump, but not as big as the one we all needed. The 7500 was not any new technology, just adding more of the current. And no we are not tunneling through another backbone, we run our backbone over Cascade 9000 with clear channel DS3s. Nathan Stratton CEO, NetRail, Inc. Tracking the future today! --------------------------------------------------------------------------- Phone (703)524-4800 NetRail, Inc. Fax (703)534-5033 2007 N. 15 St. Suite 5 Email sales@netrail.net Arlington, Va. 22201 WWW http://www.netrail.net/ --------------------------------------------------------------------------- "Therefore do not worry about tomorrow, for tomorrow will worry about itself. Each day has enough trouble of its own." Matthew 6:34
Ok, yes they added some memory and it is faster, but they needed to put a MUCH bigger CPU in that box. It was a jump, but not as big as the one we all needed. The 7500 was not any new technology, just adding more of the current. And no we are not tunneling through another backbone, we run our backbone over Cascade 9000 with clear channel DS3s.
You must be joking. The RSP1 has a 150Mhz RISC processor in it, compared to the 25Mhz 68040 that is in the RP1. What are you doing with your router that requires so much CPU? The only person who I know who is maxing out a RSP[12] is doing lots of tunnels cisco will definitely have to continue to improve their routers, because the 'net is not getting any smaller, but the 7500 series routers are a substantial improvement over the 7000 series. Alec -- +------------------------------------+--------------------------------------+ |Alec Peterson - chuckie@panix.com | Panix Public Access Internet and UNIX| |Network Administrator/Architect | New York City, NY | +------------------------------------+--------------------------------------+
Ok, yes they added some memory and it is faster, but they needed to put a MUCH bigger CPU in that box. It was a jump, but not as big as the one we all needed. The 7500 was not any new technology, just adding more of the current. And no we are not tunneling through another backbone, we run our backbone over Cascade 9000 with clear channel DS3s. You should be more specific about _why_ you want a MUCH bigger CPU. IMHO, the box needs more packet switching capacity (and more backplane bandwidth), but there's enough CPU there for the OS. Tony
On Fri, 20 Dec 1996, Tony Li wrote:
You should be more specific about _why_ you want a MUCH bigger CPU. IMHO, the box needs more packet switching capacity (and more backplane bandwidth), but there's enough CPU there for the OS.
Recomputing larger route tables, especially OSPF. Tunneling. Encryption. Acess list filtering. Finer grain accounting (I'd love to see usage stats for each interface over a day or so right from the router). And most important to me, not becoming unusuable during a major routing change. How many of us have seen a 7513 take 20 seconds to log into and then 15 seconds to respond to a command during a circuit outage that forced a major route recomputation? This is when we most need to see which BGP sessions, OSPF sessions, and interfaces are still up and maybe even do a 'show logging'. David Schwartz
Tunneling. Acess list filtering. Finer grain accounting (I'd love to see usage stats for each interface over a day or so right from the router). Both of these are switching functions. Encryption. This really should be specialized hardware. Recomputing larger route tables, especially OSPF. This is interesting. I would be interested to know what a system with adequate switching and sufficient division between switching and forwarding will do. I suspect that the CPU is big enough if the switching problem is solved. And most important to me, not becoming unusuable during a major routing change. Ditto. Tony
On Fri, 20 Dec 1996, Tony Li wrote:
Ok, yes they added some memory and it is faster, but they needed to put a MUCH bigger CPU in that box. It was a jump, but not as big as the one we all needed. The 7500 was not any new technology, just adding more of the current. And no we are not tunneling through another backbone, we run our backbone over Cascade 9000 with clear channel DS3s.
You should be more specific about _why_ you want a MUCH bigger CPU. IMHO, the box needs more packet switching capacity (and more backplane bandwidth), but there's enough CPU there for the OS.
Yes, the cisco needs more backplane, but the CPU cant keep up. Have you not watched a cisco meltdown when you lose a few NAP connections. Yes if you do not want to run a lot of BGP, have small OSPF tables, and don't want to do a lot of filtering then the 7500 is fine. Nathan Stratton CEO, NetRail, Inc. Tracking the future today! --------------------------------------------------------------------------- Phone (703)524-4800 NetRail, Inc. Fax (703)534-5033 2007 N. 15 St. Suite 5 Email sales@netrail.net Arlington, Va. 22201 WWW http://www.netrail.net/ --------------------------------------------------------------------------- "Therefore do not worry about tomorrow, for tomorrow will worry about itself. Each day has enough trouble of its own." Matthew 6:34
Yes, the cisco needs more backplane, but the CPU cant keep up. Have you not watched a cisco meltdown when you lose a few NAP connections. Yes if you do not want to run a lot of BGP, have small OSPF tables, and don't want to do a lot of filtering then the 7500 is fine. The CPU can't keep up because of the caching (which should have died by now) and because the same CPU is used for switching. I believe that there is a knob that guarantees that non-switching functionality get a guaranteed percentage of the CPU. I strongly suggest you try it out. Get the switching out of the way, and the box would be much happier. Get the cache out of the way (a software only fix) and the box becomes much more useful. Tony
Considering the general trend in other markets towards cheaper, faster CPU's, I hope Cisco is working on router rev's with far more CPU and memory capacity at marginal price increase.
See the 7500.
Hope that was a joke, the 7500 was not that big of a jump. Well, the 7500 is a joke, but that's for other reasons. Yes, it's got far more CPU and memory than the 7000. Tony
participants (6)
-
Avi Freedman -
chuckie＠panix.com -
David Schwartz -
Nathan Stratton -
Sanjay Dani -
Tony Li