Actually let me amend that and say 3800's as far as inexpensive routers. They are basically NPE400 class devices, with alot of memory and sufficient to handle the full table. Other router devices like 7200's etc will work fine as well. On Mar 11, 2009, at 2:29 PM, Brian Feeny wrote:

Honestly, my advise is don't handle full tables in switches unless you want to use 3bxl. Use routers, any old ISR can do 1GB memory or so and handle the table just fine, and run you a fraction of the cost. Keep internal routes, defaults, etc in the switching core.

Brian

On Mar 11, 2009, at 2:18 PM, Bill Blackford wrote:

...

Anyone have any experience with SUP32? Please contact me off list.

I'm trying to evaluate a lower-cost alternative to the 720-3bxl. I'm only pushing a few hundred megs of traffic, exchanging a few routes with less than 20 peers and don't see the need for a 720's worth of throughput in the near future.

Can the 32 handle a full table? How does the MFSC2A compare to the MFSC3? V6 support?

Thank you.

-- Bill Blackford Senior Network Engineer

my /home away from home

Hi, I have been searching cisco-nsp archive but not been able to find the article discussed below. I would appreciate it if someone does find the article if they can provide a copy/link to this :

Check the cisco-nsp archive, specifically from Rodney; he has talked about what the CPU load versus throughput implications are on the G1 and G2. It might surprise you a little.

Thanks, David

Important network design parameters to take into consideration when planning SUP720 vs SUP32: 1. SUP720 has 720 Gb backplane (switchfabric) on supervisor card, and 32 Gb shared bus backplane. 2. SUP32 only has 32 Gb shared bus backplane 3. New Cisco line cards with dual 20 Gb connections to 720 Gb backplane only work in the SUP720, and some only in IOS version (such as the 16 port 10 GiGE line cards) 4. Older line cards that work with SUP32 have relatively small shared hardware buffers for every 8 ports, such that it is possible to run line rate through one port and cause drops on the other 7 ports 5. Cisco recommends SUP32 for the wiring closet, as a desktop aggregation device -----Original Message----- From: Norrie, David [mailto:David.Norrie@thus.net] Sent: Wednesday, March 18, 2009 9:48 AM To: Adrian Chadd; Bill Blackford Cc: nanog@nanog.org Subject: RE: SUP720 vs. SUP32 Hi, I have been searching cisco-nsp archive but not been able to find the article discussed below. I would appreciate it if someone does find the article if they can provide a copy/link to this :

Check the cisco-nsp archive, specifically from Rodney; he has talked about what the CPU load versus throughput implications are on the G1 and G2. It might surprise you a little.

Thanks, David