T1 aggregation and data center gateways
Currently have T1 aggregation on some Cisco 7206VXR routers. Core switches and data center gateways on a couple of Cisco 6509's. Looking for a model that could collapse both functions into just two devices, one being for hardware redundancy. Any recommendations on a good L3 switch that is also a good T1 aggregation device? Anyone have any experience with the newer Cisco stuff like the ASR 1000/7600/CRS-1? Tim Sanderson ________________________________ THIS MESSAGE IS INTENDED ONLY FOR PERSONAL AND CONFIDENTIAL USE OF THE INDIVIDUAL OR ENTITY TO WHOM IT IS ADDRESSED AND MAY CONTAIN INFORMATION THAT IS PRIVILEGED, CONFIDENTIAL, AND EXEMPT FROM DISCLOSURE UNDER APPLICABLE LAW. If the reader of this message is not the intended recipient, or the employee or agent responsible for delivering the message to the intended recipient, you are hereby notified that you have received this message in error and that any review, dissemination, distribution, or copying of this message is strictly prohibited. If you have received this message in error, please notify the sender immediately by e-mail or telephone, and delete the original message immediately. Thank you.
On 03/09/2010 08:00 PM, Tim Sanderson wrote:
Currently have T1 aggregation on some Cisco 7206VXR routers. Core switches and data center gateways on a couple of Cisco 6509's. Looking for a model that could collapse both functions into just two devices, one being for hardware redundancy. Any recommendations on a good L3 switch that is also a good T1 aggregation device? Anyone have any experience with the newer Cisco stuff like the ASR 1000/7600/CRS-1?
Forgive the dumb question, but what's wrong with using a 6509 as a T1 aggregation device? Port density not cost-effective? I've seen it used that way on a number of occasions with cheap M13 muxes and DS3 interfaces. -- Alex Balashov - Principal Evariste Systems LLC Tel : +1 678-954-0670 Direct : +1 678-954-0671 Web : http://www.evaristesys.com/
On Tue, 9 Mar 2010 20:00:45 -0500 Tim Sanderson <tims@donet.com> wrote: [snip]
________________________________ THIS MESSAGE IS INTENDED ONLY FOR PERSONAL AND CONFIDENTIAL USE OF THE INDIVIDUAL OR ENTITY TO WHOM IT IS ADDRESSED AND MAY CONTAIN INFORMATION THAT IS PRIVILEGED, CONFIDENTIAL, AND EXEMPT FROM DISCLOSURE UNDER APPLICABLE LAW. If the reader of this message is not the intended recipient, or the employee or agent responsible for delivering the message to the intended recipient, you are hereby notified that you have received this message in error and that any review, dissemination, distribution, or copying of this message is strictly prohibited. If you have received this message in error, please notify the sender immediately by e-mail or telephone, and delete the original message immediately. Thank you.
Things get sillier by the day. A sig of more than 4 lines is too long, let alone all this completely unenforceable BS. If anyone sends me an email by mistake it will be published for all to see. -- John
On 3/9/2010 7:20 PM, John Peach wrote:
On Tue, 9 Mar 2010 20:00:45 -0500 Tim Sanderson <tims@donet.com> wrote:
[snip]
________________________________ THIS MESSAGE IS INTENDED ONLY FOR PERSONAL AND CONFIDENTIAL USE OF THE INDIVIDUAL OR ENTITY TO WHOM IT IS ADDRESSED AND MAY CONTAIN INFORMATION THAT IS PRIVILEGED, CONFIDENTIAL, AND EXEMPT FROM DISCLOSURE UNDER APPLICABLE LAW. If the reader of this message is not the intended recipient, or the employee or agent responsible for delivering the message to the intended recipient, you are hereby notified that you have received this message in error and that any review, dissemination, distribution, or copying of this message is strictly prohibited. If you have received this message in error, please notify the sender immediately by e-mail or telephone, and delete the original message immediately. Thank you.
Things get sillier by the day. A sig of more than 4 lines is too long, let alone all this completely unenforceable BS. If anyone sends me an email by mistake it will be published for all to see.
Whee! Been almost a week since somebody has tripped that one. Why not tell the lawyer that told the CIO to put that on every outgoing message. I'll tell you why not. It will do less good than whining about it here. Again. -- "Government big enough to supply everything you need is big enough to take everything you have."Remember: The Ark was built by amateurs, the Titanic by professionals.Requiescas in pace o emailEx turpi causa non oritur actioEppure si rinfrescaICBM Targeting Information:http://tinyurl.com/4sqczshttp://tinyurl.com/7tp8ml
Isn't that just CYA? Thank the lawyers and "corporate compliance offices" and professional whiners. Scott John Peach wrote: On Tue, 9 Mar 2010 20:00:45 -0500 Tim Sanderson [1]<tims@donet.com> wrote: [snip] ________________________________ THIS MESSAGE IS INTENDED ONLY FOR PERSONAL AND CONFIDENTIAL USE OF THE INDIVIDUA L OR ENTITY TO WHOM IT IS ADDRESSED AND MAY CONTAIN INFORMATION THAT IS PRIVILEG ED, CONFIDENTIAL, AND EXEMPT FROM DISCLOSURE UNDER APPLICABLE LAW. If the reader of this message is not the intended recipient, or the employee or agent respons ible for delivering the message to the intended recipient, you are hereby notifi ed that you have received this message in error and that any review, disseminati on, distribution, or copying of this message is strictly prohibited. If you have received this message in error, please notify the sender immediately by e-mail or telephone, and delete the original message immediately. Thank you. Things get sillier by the day. A sig of more than 4 lines is too long, let alone all this completely unenforceable BS. If anyone sends me an email by mistake it will be published for all to see. References 1. mailto:tims@donet.com
Hi Tim: On 3/9/10 5:00 PM, "Tim Sanderson" <tims@donet.com> wrote:
Currently have T1 aggregation on some Cisco 7206VXR routers. Core switches and data center gateways on a couple of Cisco 6509's. Looking for a model that could collapse both functions into just two devices, one being for hardware redundancy. Any recommendations on a good L3 switch that is also a good T1 aggregation device? Anyone have any experience with the newer Cisco stuff like the ASR 1000/7600/CRS-1?
Tim Sanderson
You might want to post this over to cisco-nsp because there are lots of options depending upon your configuration. If you're looking at port density it seems to me you would want your router/switch to have the biggest mux ports possible. So, you could look at OC-3 or even higher in the router platforms. You can get up to an OC-12 channelized, but it all depends upon your configuration. Regards, Mike
participants (6)
-
Alex Balashov -
John Peach -
Larry Sheldon -
Michael K. Smith -
Scott Morris -
Tim Sanderson